On 17/12/26 14:45, piaojun wrote: > Hi Joseph, > > On 2017/12/26 14:10, Joseph Qi wrote: >> >> >> On 17/12/26 13:35, piaojun wrote: >>> Hi Joseph, >>> >>> On 2017/12/26 11:05, Joseph Qi wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 17/12/26 10:11, piaojun wrote: >>>>> If metadata is corrupted such as 'invalid inode block', we will get >>>>> failed by calling 'mount()' as below: >>>>> >>>>> ocfs2_mount >>>>> ocfs2_initialize_super >>>>> ocfs2_init_global_system_inodes : return -EINVAL if inode is NULL >>>>> ocfs2_get_system_file_inode >>>>> _ocfs2_get_system_file_inode : return NULL if inode is errno >>>> Do you mean inode is bad? >>>> >>> Here we have to face two abnormal cases: >>> 1. inode is bad; >>> 2. read inode from disk failed due to bad storage link. >>>>> ocfs2_iget >>>>> ocfs2_read_locked_inode >>>>> ocfs2_validate_inode_block >>>>> >>>>> In this situation we need return -EROFS to upper application, so that >>>>> user can fix it by fsck. And then mount again. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jun Piao <piao...@huawei.com> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Alex Chen <alex.c...@huawei.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> fs/ocfs2/super.c | 10 ++++++++-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/super.c b/fs/ocfs2/super.c >>>>> index 040bbb6..dea21a7 100644 >>>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/super.c >>>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/super.c >>>>> @@ -474,7 +474,10 @@ static int ocfs2_init_global_system_inodes(struct >>>>> ocfs2_super *osb) >>>>> new = ocfs2_get_system_file_inode(osb, i, osb->slot_num); >>>>> if (!new) { >>>>> ocfs2_release_system_inodes(osb); >>>>> - status = -EINVAL; >>>>> + if (ocfs2_is_soft_readonly(osb)) >>>> I'm afraid that having bad inode doesn't means ocfs2 is readonly. >>>> And the calling application is mount.ocfs2. So do you mean mount.ocfs2 >>>> have to handle EROFS like printing corresponding error log? >>>> >>> I agree that 'bad inode' also means other abnormal cases like >>> 'bad storage link' or 'no memory', but we can distinguish that by >>> ocfs2_is_soft_readonly(). I found that 'mount.ocfs2' did not >>> distinguish any error type and just return 1 for all error cases. I >>> wonder if we should return the exact errno for users? >>> Soft readonly is an in-memory status. The case you described is just >> trying to read inode and then check if it is bad. So where to set the >> status before? >> > we set readonly status in the following process: > ocfs2_validate_inode_block() > ocfs2_error > ocfs2_handle_error > ocfs2_set_ro_flag(osb, 0); > > I have a suggestion that we could distinguish readonly status in > 'mount.ocfs2', and return -EROFS to users so that they can fix it. IC. Please update this information to patch description as well. And suggest just use ternary operator instead of if/else. BTW, so mount.ocfs2 should be updated correspondingly, right?
Thanks, Joseph >>> thanks, >>> Jun >>> >>>>> + status = -EROFS; >>>>> + else >>>>> + status = -EINVAL; >>>>> mlog_errno(status); >>>>> /* FIXME: Should ERROR_RO_FS */ >>>>> mlog(ML_ERROR, "Unable to load system inode %d, " >>>>> @@ -505,7 +508,10 @@ static int ocfs2_init_local_system_inodes(struct >>>>> ocfs2_super *osb) >>>>> new = ocfs2_get_system_file_inode(osb, i, osb->slot_num); >>>>> if (!new) { >>>>> ocfs2_release_system_inodes(osb); >>>>> - status = -EINVAL; >>>>> + if (ocfs2_is_soft_readonly(osb)) >>>>> + status = -EROFS; >>>>> + else >>>>> + status = -EINVAL; >>>>> mlog(ML_ERROR, "status=%d, sysfile=%d, slot=%d\n", >>>>> status, i, osb->slot_num); >>>>> goto bail; >>>>> >>>> . >>>> >> . >> _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-devel mailing list Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel