On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 02:16:04PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > nfsd4_lockt does a search for a lockstateowner when building the lock > struct to test. If one is found, it'll set fl_owner to it. Regardless of > whether that happens, it'll also set fl_lmops. Given that this lock is > basically a "lightweight" lock that's just used for checking conflicts, > setting fl_lmops is probably not appropriate for it. > > This behavior exposed a bug in DLM's GETLK implementation where it > wasn't clearing out the fields in the file_lock before filling in > conflicting lock info. While we were able to fix this in DLM, it > still seems pointless and dangerous to set the fl_lmops this way > when we may have a NULL lockstateowner. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, applied.--b. > --- > fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 1 - > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c > index 88db7d3..b6f60f4 100644 > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c > @@ -2871,7 +2871,6 @@ nfsd4_lockt(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate, > file_lock.fl_owner = (fl_owner_t)lockt->lt_stateowner; > file_lock.fl_pid = current->tgid; > file_lock.fl_flags = FL_POSIX; > - file_lock.fl_lmops = &nfsd_posix_mng_ops; > > file_lock.fl_start = lockt->lt_offset; > file_lock.fl_end = last_byte_offset(lockt->lt_offset, lockt->lt_length); > -- > 1.5.5.6 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
