On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 04:52:37PM -0400, tytso@xxxxxxx wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 05:34:43PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >
> > I don't -think- we need to do this; by now we should have s_frozen
> > set, and nobody else should be coming down the pipe to get to
> > the journal. However, just to be on the safe side, I added
> > a couple of vfs_check_frozen() calls in ext4 functions which will
> > arrive at start_this_handle(), which should ensure that we never
> > get any journal traffic generated while frozen.
>
> Um, I think the addition of vfs_check_frozen(), esp. to
> ext4_journal_start_sb() is absolutely necessary. What else do we have
> to prevent filesystem modifications from going to the file systme
> layer? I didn't see anything in the VFS layer that checks s_frozen;
> am I missing something?
Added to the ext4 patch queue, with the following patch comment:
ext4: don't return to userspace after freezing the fs with a mutex held
ext4_freeze() used jbd2_journal_lock_updates() which takes
the j_barrier mutex, and then returns to userspace. The
kernel does not like this:
================================================
[ BUG: lock held when returning to user space! ]
------------------------------------------------
lvcreate/1075 is leaving the kernel with locks still held!
1 lock held by lvcreate/1075:
#0: (&journal->j_barrier){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff811c6214>]
jbd2_journal_lock_updates+0xe1/0xf0
Use vfs_check_frozen() added to ext4_journal_start_sb() and
ext4_force_commit() instead.
Addresses-Red-Hat-Bugzilla: #568503
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
