Re: [ 64/66] GFS2: Test bufdata with buffer locked andgfs2_log_lock held

[Steven Whitehouse]

Hi,

On Sun, 2012-11-25 at 14:11 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 20:11 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 3.6-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > 
> > ------------------
> > 
> > From: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > commit 96e5d1d3adf56f1c7eeb07258f6a1a0a7ae9c489 upstream.
> > 
> > In gfs2_trans_add_bh(), gfs2 was testing if a there was a bd attached to the
> > buffer without having the gfs2_log_lock held. It was then assuming it would
> > stay attached for the rest of the function. However, without either the log
> > lock being held of the buffer locked, __gfs2_ail_flush() could detach bd at any
> > time.  This patch moves the locking before the test.  If there isn't a bd
> > already attached, gfs2 can safely allocate one and attach it before locking.
> > There is no way that the newly allocated bd could be on the ail list,
> > and thus no way for __gfs2_ail_flush() to detach it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [...]
> 
> Is this needed for any earlier versions?  It looks applicable to 3.2
> (with minor changes).
> 
> Ben.
> 

Potentially yes, although I don't think we've had any reports from that
far back,

Steve.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/