xfs: fix di_onlink checking for V1/V2 inodes
"KjellR" complained on IRC that an old V4 filesystem suddenly stopped mounting after upgrading from 6.9.11 to 6.10.3, with the following splat when trying to read the rt bitmap inode: 00000000: 49 4e 80 00 01 02 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 IN.............. 00000010: 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ 00000020: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 43 d2 a9 da 21 0f d6 30 ........C...!..0 00000030: 43 d2 a9 da 21 0f d6 30 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 C...!..0........ 00000040: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ 00000050: 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 04 00 00 00 00 ................ 00000060: ff ff ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ 00000070: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ As Dave Chinner points out, this is a V1 inode with both di_onlink and di_nlink set to 1 and di_flushiter == 0. In other words, this inode was formatted this way by mkfs and hasn't been touched since then. Back in the old days of xfsprogs 3.2.3, I observed that libxfs_ialloc would set di_nlink, but if the filesystem didn't have NLINK, it would then set di_version = 1. libxfs_iflush_int later sees the V1 inode and copies the value of di_nlink to di_onlink without zeroing di_onlink. Eventually this filesystem must have been upgraded to support NLINK because 6.10 doesn't support !NLINK filesystems, which is how we tripped over this old behavior. The filesystem doesn't have a realtime section, so that's why the rtbitmap inode has never been touched. Fix this by removing the di_onlink/di_nlink checking for all V1/V2 inodes because this is a muddy mess. The V3 inode handling code has always supported NLINK and written di_onlink==0 so keep that check. The removal of the V1 inode handling code when we dropped support for !NLINK obscured this old behavior. Reported-by: kjell.m.randa@gmail.com Fixes: 40cb8613 ("xfs: check unused nlink fields in the ondisk inode") Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Signed-off-by: Chandan Babu R <chandanbabu@kernel.org>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment