On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 03:40:23PM +0900, hooanon05@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > "J. Bruce Fields": > > > Isn't it better to test it BEFORE fh_compose()? > ::: > > Yes, I think you're right. > > Then here you are. The nfsv4 readdir callback needs a similar fix. Also, it looks to me like this results in us encoding an entry for this deleted file in the readdir reply, but with an empty filehandle. From a quick glance at the rfc it's not clear to me whether this is really legal. I suspect it may cause odd behavior on clients. At the least it would seem cleaner to check for this condition early enough that we can just skip the entry entirely. --b. > > J. R. Okajima > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > commit c98c6c4a207d602bd9498ea5f1d2993a00e98445 > Author: J. R. Okajima <hooanon05@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu Apr 23 15:38:43 2009 +0900 > > NFSD: test d_inode before fh_compose() > > After 2f9092e1020246168b1309b35e085ecd7ff9ff72 "Fix i_mutex vs. readdir > handling in nfsd" (and 14f7dd63 "Copy XFS readdir hack into nfsd code"), > an entry may be removed between the first mutex_unlock and the second > mutex_lock. In this case, lookup_one_len() in compose_entry_fh() will > return a negative dentry. > It is better to test inode (positive/negative) BEFORE fh_compose(). > > Signed-off-by: J. R. Okajima <hooanon05@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs3xdr.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs3xdr.c > index 17d0dd9..1b5543b 100644 > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs3xdr.c > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs3xdr.c > @@ -851,8 +851,8 @@ compose_entry_fh(struct nfsd3_readdirres *cd, struct svc_fh *fhp, > if (IS_ERR(dchild)) > return 1; > if (d_mountpoint(dchild) || > - fh_compose(fhp, exp, dchild, &cd->fh) != 0 || > - !dchild->d_inode) > + !dchild->d_inode || > + fh_compose(fhp, exp, dchild, &cd->fh) != 0) > rv = 1; > dput(dchild); > return rv; -- 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
