forked from Minki/linux
ext4: use s_csum_seed instead of i_csum_seed for xattr block
In xattr block operation, we use h_refcount to indicate whether the xattr block is shared among many inodes. And xattr block csum uses s_csum_seed if it is shared and i_csum_seed if it belongs to one inode. But this has a problem. So consider the block is shared first bewteen inode A and B, and B has some xattr update and CoW the xattr block. When it updates the *old* xattr block(because of the h_refcount change) and calls ext4_xattr_release_block, we has no idea that inode A is the real owner of the *old* xattr block and we can't use the i_csum_seed of inode A either in xattr block csum calculation. And I don't think we have an easy way to find inode A. So this patch just removes the tricky i_csum_seed and we now uses s_csum_seed every time for the xattr block csum. The corresponding patch for the e2fsprogs will be sent in another patch. This is spotted by xfstests 117. Signed-off-by: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com> Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> Acked-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@us.ibm.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
ef58f69c3c
commit
41eb70dde4
@ -127,19 +127,16 @@ static __le32 ext4_xattr_block_csum(struct inode *inode,
|
||||
struct ext4_xattr_header *hdr)
|
||||
{
|
||||
struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(inode->i_sb);
|
||||
struct ext4_inode_info *ei = EXT4_I(inode);
|
||||
__u32 csum, old;
|
||||
|
||||
old = hdr->h_checksum;
|
||||
hdr->h_checksum = 0;
|
||||
if (le32_to_cpu(hdr->h_refcount) != 1) {
|
||||
block_nr = cpu_to_le64(block_nr);
|
||||
csum = ext4_chksum(sbi, sbi->s_csum_seed, (__u8 *)&block_nr,
|
||||
sizeof(block_nr));
|
||||
} else
|
||||
csum = ei->i_csum_seed;
|
||||
block_nr = cpu_to_le64(block_nr);
|
||||
csum = ext4_chksum(sbi, sbi->s_csum_seed, (__u8 *)&block_nr,
|
||||
sizeof(block_nr));
|
||||
csum = ext4_chksum(sbi, csum, (__u8 *)hdr,
|
||||
EXT4_BLOCK_SIZE(inode->i_sb));
|
||||
|
||||
hdr->h_checksum = old;
|
||||
return cpu_to_le32(csum);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user