2.6.27-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. ------------------ From: Jeff Layton commit fa82a491275a613b15489aab4b99acecb00958d3 upstream. nfsd4_lockt does a search for a lockstateowner when building the lock struct to test. If one is found, it'll set fl_owner to it. Regardless of whether that happens, it'll also set fl_lmops. Given that this lock is basically a "lightweight" lock that's just used for checking conflicts, setting fl_lmops is probably not appropriate for it. This behavior exposed a bug in DLM's GETLK implementation where it wasn't clearing out the fields in the file_lock before filling in conflicting lock info. While we were able to fix this in DLM, it still seems pointless and dangerous to set the fl_lmops this way when we may have a NULL lockstateowner. Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c @@ -2840,7 +2840,6 @@ nfsd4_lockt(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, stru file_lock.fl_owner = (fl_owner_t)lockt->lt_stateowner; file_lock.fl_pid = current->tgid; file_lock.fl_flags = FL_POSIX; - file_lock.fl_lmops = &nfsd_posix_mng_ops; file_lock.fl_start = lockt->lt_offset; if ((lockt->lt_length == ~(u64)0) || LOFF_OVERFLOW(lockt->lt_offset, lockt->lt_length)) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/