The VFS layer already protects xattr_handler.set from concurrent
access via an inode mutex, so there is no reason to take an fs_lock
as well. This avoids a potential dealock:
- vfs_create()
- f2fs_create() - takes an fs_lock
- f2fs_add_link()
- __f2fs_add_link()
- init_inode_metadata()
- f2fs_init_security()
- security_inode_init_security()
- f2fs_initxattrs()
- f2fs_setxattr() - also takes an fs_lock
If the caller happens to grab the same fs_lock from the pool in both
places, they will deadlock.
Signed-off-by: Russ Knize <rknize@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/f2fs/xattr.c | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/xattr.c b/fs/f2fs/xattr.c
index 1ac8a5f..18b4080 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/xattr.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/xattr.c
@@ -478,7 +478,6 @@ int f2fs_setxattr(struct inode *inode, int
name_index, const char *name,
void *base_addr;
int found, newsize;
size_t name_len;
- int ilock;
__u32 new_hsize;
int error = -ENOMEM;
@@ -495,8 +494,6 @@ int f2fs_setxattr(struct inode *inode, int
name_index, const char *name,
f2fs_balance_fs(sbi);
- ilock = mutex_lock_op(sbi);
-
base_addr = read_all_xattrs(inode, ipage);
if (!base_addr)
goto exit;
@@ -578,7 +575,6 @@ int f2fs_setxattr(struct inode *inode, int
name_index, const char *name,
else
update_inode_page(inode);
exit:
- mutex_unlock_op(sbi, ilock);
kzfree(base_addr);
return error;
}
--
1.7.10.4
--
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
