Hi Linus,
Is it too late in the cycle to send some AFS fixes? If you don't want to
pull the AFS fixes, can you at least apply the fscache fix as that
potentially affects other filesystems too?
There are four patches:
(1) Fix the default return of fscache_maybe_release_page() when a cache
isn't in use - it prevents a filesystem from releasing pages. This
can cause a system to OOM.
(2) Fix a potential uninitialised variable in AFS.
(3) Fix AFS unlink's handling of the nlink count. It needs to use the
nlink manipulation functions so that inode structs of deleted inodes
actually get scheduled for destruction.
(4) Fix error handling in afs_write_end() so that the page gets unlocked
and put if we can't fill the unwritten portion.
The patches can be found here also:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/log/?h=afs-fixes
tagged thusly:
afs-fixes-20180102
David
---
Dan Carpenter (1):
afs: Potential uninitialized variable in afs_extract_data()
David Howells (3):
fscache: Fix the default for fscache_maybe_release_page()
afs: Fix unlink
afs: Fix missing error handling in afs_write_end()
fs/afs/dir.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
fs/afs/inode.c | 4 ++++
fs/afs/rxrpc.c | 2 +-
fs/afs/write.c | 8 +++++---
include/linux/fscache.h | 2 +-
5 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
