[OpenWrt-Devel] UBIFS issues within kernel 4.14.69?

Koen Vandeputte koen.vandeputte at ncentric.com
Sun Sep 16 16:11:07 EDT 2018

On 16-09-18 21:39, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Koen,
> Am Samstag, 15. September 2018, 09:13:09 CEST schrieb Richard Weinberger:
>> Koen,
>> Am Dienstag, 11. September 2018, 16:26:34 CEST schrieb Koen Vandeputte:
>>> On 2018-09-11 15:46, Koen Vandeputte wrote:
>>>> Hi Richard,
>>> ...
>>>> I'm only seeing these issues on UBIFS enabled volumes.
>>>> It seems it's related to one of your 5 commits, but I'm still in the
>>>> process of bisecting to find the actual culprit.
>>>> As soon as I've found it, I'll let you know, but maybe you already
>>>> have an idea here?
>>> Reverting ("ubifs: xattr: Don't operate on deleted inodes") fixes the
>>> weird issues.
>> Thanks for finding that bad commit!
>> I fear by fixing one bug I've uncovered another one.
>> So, I guess you are using overlayfs?
>> Which overlayfs features are you using?
> I guess I've figured myself.
> overlayfs is using temp files (O_TMPFILE), and a recent overlayfs
> feature uses xattrs to indicate directory redirects.
> So it can happen that a temp file, which has link count 0, gains
> xattrs.
> UBIFS models xattrs like regular files in directories. Since you cannot
> add new files to a unlinked directory, UBIFS kind of enforced that for
> xattrs too.
> I say "kind of" because technically it works but can trigger an assertion
> in UBIFS's journal code.
> Recently I saw this assertion but failed to conclude that xattr operations on
> unlinked files are perfectly fine and "fixed" the assert.
> The right solution is reverting "ubifs: xattr: Don't operate on deleted inodes"
> and removing the false positive asserts from UBIFS' journal code.
> Sadly xfstests does not test for that, I'll prepare a new test case.
> Maybe other file systems got this wrong too.
> Thanks,
> //richard
Hi Richard,

Apologies for the late reply.
It was a busy weekend with the kids ..

I'm very pleased to read you already have a good idea of what is going 
on here.

Can I conclude you will provide a patch upstream to revert this specific 
Please keep me in CC in case you do, so I can backport it properly into 
OpenWrt on the next kernel bump. (until it is present in a future stable)

Once again, I highly appreciate you fast response in trying to get this 

Thank you Richard,


Reported-by: Koen Vandeputte <koen.vandeputte at ncentric.com>

openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org

More information about the openwrt-devel mailing list