Previously, there was a erroneous scenario like below.
thread 1: thread 2:
f2fs_unlink
- acquire_orphan_inode
: sbi->n_orphans++ write_checkpoint
- block_operations
: f2fs_lock_all
- do_checkpoint
: write orphan blocks with sbi->n_orphans
- unblock_operations
- f2fs_lock_op
- release_orphan_inode
- f2fs_unlock_op
During the checkpoint by thread 2, f2fs stores a wrong orphan block according
to the wrong sbi->n_orphans.
To avoid this, simply we should make cover acquire_orphan_inode too with
f2fs_lock_op.
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/f2fs/namei.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/namei.c b/fs/f2fs/namei.c
index 29f73fd..575adac 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/namei.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/namei.c
@@ -228,14 +228,14 @@ static int f2fs_unlink(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
if (!de)
goto fail;
+ f2fs_lock_op(sbi);
err = acquire_orphan_inode(sbi);
if (err) {
+ f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
kunmap(page);
f2fs_put_page(page, 0);
goto fail;
}
-
- f2fs_lock_op(sbi);
f2fs_delete_entry(de, page, inode);
f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
--
1.8.4.474.g128a96c
--
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
