On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 10:16:29PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
> OK, my guess is that it's a 'rename to self' which was not properly
> implemented.
>
> Does the following patch make a difference?
That one panic'd immediatly. Seems that we can have missmatched lowers
as well. I applied the below over the top, and that seems to pass
testing without tripping the WARN_ON.
-apw
commit 03375858c62f617846b5dc4968fe8178eda51a7c
Author: Andy Whitcroft <apw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Oct 5 14:54:08 2010 +0100
overlayfs: handle missing lower inodes in ovl_is_same_inode
Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/overlayfs.c b/fs/overlayfs/overlayfs.c
index c10cc7b..f596222 100644
--- a/fs/overlayfs/overlayfs.c
+++ b/fs/overlayfs/overlayfs.c
@@ -1964,19 +1964,25 @@ static int ovl_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
static bool ovl_is_same_inode(struct dentry *d1, struct dentry *d2)
{
- struct dentry *upperd1;
- struct dentry *upperd2;
+ struct dentry *od1;
+ struct dentry *od2;
- upperd1 = ovl_dentry_upper(d1);
- upperd2 = ovl_dentry_upper(d2);
+ od1 = ovl_dentry_upper(d1);
+ od2 = ovl_dentry_upper(d2);
- if (upperd1 && upperd2)
- return vfs_is_same_inode(upperd1, upperd2);
+ if (od1 && od2)
+ return vfs_is_same_inode(od1, od2);
- if (upperd1 || upperd2)
+ if (od1 || od2)
return false;
- return vfs_is_same_inode(ovl_dentry_lower(d1), ovl_dentry_lower(d2));
+ od1 = ovl_dentry_lower(d1);
+ od2 = ovl_dentry_lower(d2);
+
+ if (od1 && od2)
+ return vfs_is_same_inode(od1, od2);
+
+ return false;
}
static const struct super_operations ovl_super_operations = {
--
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
