On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue 31-10-17 16:45:57, Jan Kara wrote:
>> On Tue 31-10-17 14:11:49, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
>> > > ---
>> > > fs/notify/dnotify/dnotify.c | 5 ++++-
>> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/fs/notify/dnotify/dnotify.c b/fs/notify/dnotify/dnotify.c
>> > > index cba328315929..a50183bd0ab9 100644
>> > > --- a/fs/notify/dnotify/dnotify.c
>> > > +++ b/fs/notify/dnotify/dnotify.c
>> > > @@ -319,7 +319,9 @@ int fcntl_dirnotify(int fd, struct file *filp, unsigned long arg)
>> > > dn_mark = container_of(fsn_mark, struct dnotify_mark, fsn_mark);
>> > > spin_lock(&fsn_mark->lock);
>> > > } else {
>> > > - fsnotify_add_mark_locked(new_fsn_mark, inode, NULL, 0);
>> > > + error = fsnotify_add_mark_locked(new_fsn_mark, inode, NULL, 0);
>> > > + if (error)
>> > > + goto out_err;
>> >
>> > out_err is not unlocking dnotify_group->mark_mutex, and probably need to
>> > put fsn_mark as well?
>>
>> Argh, good point about mark_mutex (I wonder how come this didn't deadlock
>> when I've tested it). You don't need to put fsn_mark - that is guaranteed
>> to be NULL here.
>
> Attached is a new version of the patch.
Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>
