[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130301194358.183293958@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:44:44 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Tero Roponen <tero.roponen@...il.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
Subject: [ 59/77] fuse: dont WARN when nlink is zero
3.8-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
commit dfca7cebc2679f3d129f8e680a8f199a7ad16e38 upstream.
drop_nlink() warns if nlink is already zero. This is triggerable by a buggy
userspace filesystem. The cure, I think, is worse than the disease so disable
the warning.
Reported-by: Tero Roponen <tero.roponen@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
fs/fuse/dir.c | 9 ++++++++-
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/fs/fuse/dir.c
+++ b/fs/fuse/dir.c
@@ -682,7 +682,14 @@ static int fuse_unlink(struct inode *dir
spin_lock(&fc->lock);
fi->attr_version = ++fc->attr_version;
- drop_nlink(inode);
+ /*
+ * If i_nlink == 0 then unlink doesn't make sense, yet this can
+ * happen if userspace filesystem is careless. It would be
+ * difficult to enforce correct nlink usage so just ignore this
+ * condition here
+ */
+ if (inode->i_nlink > 0)
+ drop_nlink(inode);
spin_unlock(&fc->lock);
fuse_invalidate_attr(inode);
fuse_invalidate_attr(dir);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists