3.16.85-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Theodore Ts'o tytso@mit.edu
commit 0a944e8a6c66ca04c7afbaa17e22bf208a8b37f0 upstream.
Since the journal inode is already checked when we added it to the block validity's system zone, if we check it again, we'll just trigger a failure.
This was causing failures like this:
[ 53.897001] EXT4-fs error (device sda): ext4_find_extent:909: inode #8: comm jbd2/sda-8: pblk 121667583 bad header/extent: invalid extent entries - magic f30a, entries 8, max 340(340), depth 0(0) [ 53.931430] jbd2_journal_bmap: journal block not found at offset 49 on sda-8 [ 53.938480] Aborting journal on device sda-8.
... but only if the system was under enough memory pressure that logical->physical mapping for the journal inode gets pushed out of the extent cache. (This is why it wasn't noticed earlier.)
Fixes: 345c0dbf3a30 ("ext4: protect journal inode's blocks using block_validity") Reported-by: Dan Rue dan.rue@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o tytso@mit.edu Tested-by: Naresh Kamboju naresh.kamboju@linaro.org [bwh: Backported to 3.16: Use EXT4_HAS_COMPAT_FEATURE()] Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings ben@decadent.org.uk --- --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c @@ -503,10 +503,15 @@ __read_extent_tree_block(const char *fun } if (buffer_verified(bh) && !(flags & EXT4_EX_FORCE_CACHE)) return bh; - err = __ext4_ext_check(function, line, inode, - ext_block_hdr(bh), depth, pblk); - if (err) - goto errout; + if (!EXT4_HAS_COMPAT_FEATURE(inode->i_sb, + EXT4_FEATURE_COMPAT_HAS_JOURNAL) || + (inode->i_ino != + le32_to_cpu(EXT4_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_es->s_journal_inum))) { + err = __ext4_ext_check(function, line, inode, + ext_block_hdr(bh), depth, pblk); + if (err) + goto errout; + } set_buffer_verified(bh); /* * If this is a leaf block, cache all of its entries