On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 14:46 +0100, Luis Henriques wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:40:32AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > Cc: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@xxxxxxx>
> > Fixes: 878dabb64117 (ceph: don't return -ESTALE if there's still an open file)
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/ceph/export.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/ceph/export.c b/fs/ceph/export.c
> > index f22156ee7306..17d8c8f4ec89 100644
> > --- a/fs/ceph/export.c
> > +++ b/fs/ceph/export.c
> > @@ -178,8 +178,10 @@ static struct dentry *__fh_to_dentry(struct super_block *sb, u64 ino)
> > return ERR_CAST(inode);
> > /* We need LINK caps to reliably check i_nlink */
> > err = ceph_do_getattr(inode, CEPH_CAP_LINK_SHARED, false);
> > - if (err)
> > + if (err) {
> > + iput(inode);
>
> To be honest, I'm failing to see where we could be leaking the inode here.
> We're trying to get LINK caps to do the check bellow; if ceph_do_getattr()
> fails, the inode reference it (may) grabs will be released by calling
> ceph_mdsc_put_request().
>
> Do you see any other possibility?
>
We already hold a reference to the inode at this point by virtue of the
successful return from __lookup_inode. ceph_do_getattr does not consume
that reference on success or failure, AFAICT.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
