[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130802101459.260385063@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 18:18:27 +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, Alex Lyakas <alex.btrfs@...arastorage.com>,
Josef Bacik <jbacik@...ionio.com>
Subject: [ 17/39] Btrfs: fix lock leak when resuming snapshot deletion
3.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...ionio.com>
commit fec386ac1428f9c0e672df952cbca5cebd4e4e2f upstream.
We aren't setting path->locks[level] when we resume a snapshot deletion which
means we won't unlock the buffer when we free the path. This causes deadlocks
if we happen to re-allocate the block before we've evicted the extent buffer
from cache. Thanks,
Reported-by: Alex Lyakas <alex.btrfs@...arastorage.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...ionio.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -6903,6 +6903,7 @@ int btrfs_drop_snapshot(struct btrfs_roo
while (1) {
btrfs_tree_lock(path->nodes[level]);
btrfs_set_lock_blocking(path->nodes[level]);
+ path->locks[level] = BTRFS_WRITE_LOCK_BLOCKING;
ret = btrfs_lookup_extent_info(trans, root,
path->nodes[level]->start,
@@ -6919,6 +6920,7 @@ int btrfs_drop_snapshot(struct btrfs_roo
break;
btrfs_tree_unlock(path->nodes[level]);
+ path->locks[level] = 0;
WARN_ON(wc->refs[level] != 1);
level--;
}
--
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