On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:00 PM d.privalov <d.privalov@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> commit 97f044f690bac2b094bfb7fb2d177ef946c85880 upstream.
>
> The fuse_iget() call in create_new_entry() already updated the inode with
> all the new attributes and incremented the attribute version.
>
> Incrementing the nlink will result in the wrong count. This wasn't noticed
> because the attributes were invalidated right after this.
>
> Updating ctime is still needed for the writeback case when the ctime is not
> refreshed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitriy Privalov <d.privalov@xxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/fuse/dir.c | 29 ++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/dir.c b/fs/fuse/dir.c
> index 4488a53a192d..7055fdc1b8ce 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/dir.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/dir.c
> @@ -807,7 +807,7 @@ void fuse_flush_time_update(struct inode *inode)
> mapping_set_error(inode->i_mapping, err);
> }
>
> -void fuse_update_ctime(struct inode *inode)
> +static void fuse_update_ctime_in_cache(struct inode *inode)
> {
Backport is wrong. In the original patch we have
- fuse_invalidate_attr(inode);
And that line comes from 371e8fd02969 ("fuse: move
fuse_invalidate_attr() into fuse_update_ctime()") in v5.16.
The fix is to not introduce fuse_update_ctime_in_cache(), because
fuse_update_ctime() is already doing that.
Thanks,
Miklos
