On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 02:16:02PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > This patchset fixes a regression due to this patch: These look reasonable, thanks. My testing infrastructure and stuff is still down, so I may be a little slow getting these upstream.... Bug me again next week if I haven't done anything and you think of it. --b. > > ----------------[snip]---------------- > commit 55ef1274dddd4de387c54d110e354ffbb6cdc706 > Author: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat Dec 20 11:58:38 2008 -0800 > > nfsd: Ensure nfsv4 calls the underlying filesystem on LOCKT > ----------------[snip]---------------- > > To reproduce, set up a nfs server that is serving out a GFS2 filesystem. > Set a lock locally on a file on the GFS2 export on the server. From a > NFSv4 client, do a GETLK against the same file. The server will oops due > to a NULL pointer dereference. The fl_lmops will be set, but the > fl_owner will be a NULL pointer. The knfsd code does not account for > this possibility. It assumes that when fl_lmops is set this way that > the fl_owner will point to a valid nfs4_stateowner struct. > > In actuality, Bruce's patch is correct, but it exposes a bug in DLM's > GETLK codepath. The first patch in this set fixes that. > > The second patch fixes knfsd to be a little more careful about the > file_lock struct it builds to pass to vfs_test_lock. > > Either patch should prevent the panic, though I think applying both > patches is the best approach to fixing this. > > Jeff Layton (2): > dlm: initialize file_lock struct in GETLK before copying conflicting > lock > nfsd: only set file_lock.fl_lmops in nfsd4_lockt if a stateowner is > found > > fs/dlm/plock.c | 2 ++ > fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 1 - > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
