Re: inode with zero dtime

Janos Farkas (Janos.Farkas-nouce/priv-#nSPgdV0jSEF1Onu073atl/SKi/W@lk9qw.mail.eon.ml.org)
Tue, 1 Sep 1998 00:02:06 +0200


On 1998-08-31 at 18:24:14, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> That's the problem: it should be illegal to remount a fs readonly
> while there are still orphaned deleted inodes present.
>
> The problem is that closing such an inode acts as a delete. If the fs
> is readonly at the time, then either we cannot complete the delete on
> disk, or we have to fail the close. Either way lands us in a mess.
> The alternative is to prevent the fs from being marked readonly until
> these inodes finally get cleaned up.

But... [I can't believe this problem can't die after years.. :)] there
are cases when the inodes cannot get cleaned up before a reboot... For
example, if libc.so is upgraded, and the old one is removed. When done
correctly, no harm is done, but programs, and especially init, if linked
dynamically (and keept running), will hold on to the inode until
infinity... In this case, if you don't let the remount succeed, the
current uneducated init scripts will reboot anyway, and let fsck sort
out what happened, which is a bit rude (i.e. e2fs knows what's going on,
but refuses to handle it). Resurrecting deleted, but irremovable inodes
into lost+found could solve this, but sounds a bit dodgy... I don't
know which is worse.

Maybe a dedicated 'hey-fsck-delete-these-inodes' special internal
(inaccessible from the filesystem) directory to keep them, and make it
easier for the kernel rather than create the possibly nonexistent
lost+found directory?

-- 
Janos - Don't worry, my address is real.  I'm just bored of spam.

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html