+13
−7
Loading
Gitlab 现已全面支持 git over ssh 与 git over https。通过 HTTPS 访问请配置带有 read_repository / write_repository 权限的 Personal access token。通过 SSH 端口访问请使用 22 端口或 13389 端口。如果使用CAS注册了账户但不知道密码,可以自行至设置中更改;如有其他问题,请发邮件至 service@cra.moe 寻求协助。
Commit 73ca1001 broke the code that prevents the client from deleting a silly renamed dentry. This affected "delete on last close" semantics as after that commit, nothing prevented removal of silly-renamed files. As a result, a process holding a file open could easily get an ESTALE on the file in a directory where some other process issued 'rm -rf some_dir_containing_the_file' twice. Before the commit, any attempt at unlinking silly renamed files would fail inside may_delete() with -EBUSY because of the DCACHE_NFSFS_RENAMED flag. The following testcase demonstrates the problem: tail -f /nfsmnt/dir/file & rm -rf /nfsmnt/dir rm -rf /nfsmnt/dir # second removal does not fail, 'tail' process receives ESTALE The problem with the above commit is that it unhashes the old and new dentries from the lookup path, even in the normal case when a signal is not encountered and it would have been safe to call d_move. Unfortunately the old dentry has the special DCACHE_NFSFS_RENAMED flag set on it. Unhashing has the side-effect that future lookups call d_alloc(), allocating a new dentry without the special flag for any silly-renamed files. As a result, subsequent calls to unlink silly renamed files do not fail but allow the removal to go through. This will result in ESTALE errors for any other process doing operations on the file. To fix this, go back to using d_move on success. For the signal case, it's unclear what we may safely do beyond d_drop. Reported-by:Dave Wysochanski <dwysocha@redhat.com> Signed-off-by:
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> Acked-by:
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
CRA Git | Maintained and supported by SUSTech CRA and CCSE