-
Zhihao Cheng authored
There are two states for ubifs writing pages: 1. Dirty, Private 2. Not Dirty, Not Private There is a third possibility which maybe related to [1] that page is private but not dirty caused by following process: PA lock(page) ubifs_write_end attach_page_private // set Private __set_page_dirty_nobuffers // set Dirty unlock(page) write_cache_pages lock(page) clear_page_dirty_for_io(page) // clear Dirty ubifs_writepage write_inode // fail, goto out, following codes are not executed // do_writepage // set_page_writeback // set Writeback // detach_page_private // clear Private // end_page_writeback // clear Writeback out: unlock(page) // Private, Not Dirty PB ksys_fadvise64_64 generic_fadvise invalidate_inode_page // page is neither Dirty nor Writeback invalidate_complete_page // page_has_private is true try_to_release_page ubifs_releasepage ubifs_assert(c, 0) !!! Then we may get following assertion failed: UBIFS error (ubi0:0 pid 1492): ubifs_assert_failed [ubifs]: UBIFS assert failed: 0, in fs/ubifs/file.c:1499 UBIFS warning (ubi0:0 pid 1492): ubifs_ro_mode [ubifs]: switched to read-only mode, error -22 CPU: 2 PID: 1492 Comm: aa Not tainted 5.16.0-rc2-00012-g7bb767dee0ba-dirty Call Trace: dump_stack+0x13/0x1b ubifs_ro_mode+0x54/0x60 [ubifs] ubifs_assert_failed+0x4b/0x80 [ubifs] ubifs_releasepage+0x7e/0x1e0 [ubifs] try_to_release_page+0x57/0xe0 invalidate_inode_page+0xfb/0x130 invalidate_mapping_pagevec+0x12/0x20 generic_fadvise+0x303/0x3c0 vfs_fadvise+0x35/0x40 ksys_fadvise64_64+0x4c/0xb0 Jump [2] to find a reproducer. [1] https://linux-mtd.infradead.narkive.com/NQoBeT1u/patch-rfc-ubifs-fix-assert-failed-in-ubifs-set-page-dirty [2] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215357 Fixes: 1e51764a ("UBIFS: add new flash file system") Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
fb8bc4c7