lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 1 May 2020 10:24:53 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <>
To:     David Sterba <>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Qu Wenruo <>, Josef Bacik <>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with the btrfs-fixes

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in:


between commit:

  fcc99734d1d4 ("btrfs: transaction: Avoid deadlock due to bad initialization timing of fs_info::journal_info")

from the btrfs-fixes tree and commit:

  f12ca53a6fd6 ("btrfs: force chunk allocation if our global rsv is larger than metadata")

from the btrfs tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc fs/btrfs/transaction.c
index 2d5498136e5e,e4dbd8e3c641..000000000000
--- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
@@@ -666,15 -674,17 +672,26 @@@ got_it
  		current->journal_info = h;
 +	 * btrfs_record_root_in_trans() needs to alloc new extents, and may
 +	 * call btrfs_join_transaction() while we're also starting a
 +	 * transaction.
 +	 *
 +	 * Thus it need to be called after current->journal_info initialized,
 +	 * or we can deadlock.
 +	 */
 +	btrfs_record_root_in_trans(h, root);
+ 	 * If the space_info is marked ALLOC_FORCE then we'll get upgraded to
+ 	 * ALLOC_FORCE the first run through, and then we won't allocate for
+ 	 * anybody else who races in later.  We don't care about the return
+ 	 * value here.
+ 	 */
+ 	if (do_chunk_alloc && num_bytes) {
+ 		u64 flags = h->block_rsv->space_info->flags;
+ 		btrfs_chunk_alloc(h, btrfs_get_alloc_profile(fs_info, flags),
+ 	}
  	return h;

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists