On 06/06/2010 05:50 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> From: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> When synchronizing the superblock, exofs first initiates the SB write
> (a) and then marks the superblock as clean (b). However, meanwhile
> (between (a) and (b)) someone else can modify the superblock and
> mark it as dirty. This would be a race condition, and the result
> would be that we'd end up with a modified superblock which would
> nevertheless be marked as clean (because of (b)). This means that
> 'sync_supers()' would never call our '->write_super()', at least
> not until yet another SB change happens.
>
> This patch fixes this race condition by marking the superblock as
> clean before initiating the write operation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Ack-by: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Grate fix thanks
Boaz
> ---
> fs/exofs/super.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/exofs/super.c b/fs/exofs/super.c
> index 74ccbdc..0b432b9 100644
> --- a/fs/exofs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/exofs/super.c
> @@ -219,6 +219,7 @@ int exofs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
> * the fscb->s_dev_table_oid member. There is no read-modify-write
> * here.
> */
> + sb_mark_clean(sb);
> ios->length = offsetof(struct exofs_fscb, s_dev_table_oid);
> memset(fscb, 0, ios->length);
> fscb->s_nextid = cpu_to_le64(sbi->s_nextid);
> @@ -237,7 +238,6 @@ int exofs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
> EXOFS_ERR("%s: exofs_sbi_write failed.\n", __func__);
> goto out;
> }
> - sb_mark_clean(sb);
>
> out:
> EXOFS_DBGMSG("s_nextid=0x%llx ret=%d\n", _LLU(sbi->s_nextid), ret);
--
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
