Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.36;
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 17:40:57 +0800 (CST)
Message-ID: <202310131740571821517@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <20231013-tyrannisieren-umfassen-0047ab6279aa@brauner>
References: 202310131527303451636@zte.com.cn,20231013-tyrannisieren-umfassen-0047ab6279aa@brauner
Mime-Version: 1.0
From:   <cheng.lin130@zte.com.cn>
To:     <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc:     <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, <djwong@kernel.org>,
        <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <david@fromorbit.com>, <hch@infradead.org>,
        <jiang.yong5@zte.com.cn>, <wang.liang82@zte.com.cn>,
        <liu.dong3@zte.com.cn>
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFtSRkMgUEFUQ0hdIGZzOiBpbnRyb2R1Y2UgY2hlY2sgZm9yIGRyb3AvaW5jX25saW5r?=
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 03:27:30PM +0800, cheng.lin130@zte.com.cn wrote:
> > From: Cheng Lin <cheng.lin130@zte.com.cn>
> >
> > Avoid inode nlink overflow or underflow.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Cheng Lin <cheng.lin130@zte.com.cn>
> > ---
> I'm very confused. There's no explanation why that's needed. As it
> stands it's not possible to provide a useful review.
> I'm not saying it's wrong. I just don't understand why and even if this
> should please show up in the commit message.
In an xfs issue, there was an nlink underflow of a directory inode. There
is a key information in the kernel messages, that is the WARN_ON from
drop_nlink(). However, VFS did not prevent the underflow. I'm not sure
if this behavior is inadvertent or specifically designed. As an abnormal
situation, perhaps prohibiting nlink overflow or underflow is a better way
to handle it.
Request for your comment.