On 10/13/2010 07:34 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Btw, this looks like a nasty enough bug that it might be worth queing
> up for 2.6.36.
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:15:49AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Direct modification of the inode reference count is a no-no. Convert
>> the exofs decrements to call iput() instead of acting directly on
>> i_count.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/exofs/inode.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/exofs/inode.c b/fs/exofs/inode.c
>> index b631ff3..0fb4d4c 100644
>> --- a/fs/exofs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/exofs/inode.c
>> @@ -1101,7 +1101,7 @@ static void create_done(struct exofs_io_state *ios, void *p)
>>
>> set_obj_created(oi);
>>
>> - atomic_dec(&inode->i_count);
>> + iput(inode);
>> wake_up(&oi->i_wq);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1161,7 +1161,7 @@ struct inode *exofs_new_inode(struct inode *dir, int mode)
>> ios->cred = oi->i_cred;
>> ret = exofs_sbi_create(ios);
>> if (ret) {
>> - atomic_dec(&inode->i_count);
>> + iput(inode);
>> exofs_put_io_state(ios);
>> return ERR_PTR(ret);
>> }
>> --
I suspect it's not a bug but a useless inc/dec because in all my testing
I have not seen an inode leak. Let me investigate if it can be removed.
So I do not think we need it for 2.6.36.
I'll take this patch into my 2.6.37-rcX merge window. It should appear
in linux-next by tomorrow. Hopefully followed by a removal patch later.
Thanks for the catch
Boaz
--
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
