On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If the open stateid could not be recovered, or the file locks were lost, > then we should fail the truncate() operation altogether. > > Reported-by: Andy Adamson <andros@xxxxxxxxxx> > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1393954269-3974-1-git-send-email-andros@xxxxxxxxxx > Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 9 ++++++--- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > index 44e088dc357c..daf41182ecfb 100644 > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > @@ -2398,13 +2398,16 @@ static int _nfs4_do_setattr(struct inode *inode, struct rpc_cred *cred, > > if (nfs4_copy_delegation_stateid(&arg.stateid, inode, fmode)) { > /* Use that stateid */ > - } else if (truncate && state != NULL && nfs4_valid_open_stateid(state)) { > + } else if (truncate && state != NULL) { > struct nfs_lockowner lockowner = { > .l_owner = current->files, > .l_pid = current->tgid, > }; > - nfs4_select_rw_stateid(&arg.stateid, state, FMODE_WRITE, > - &lockowner); > + if (!nfs4_valid_open_stateid(state)) > + return -EBADF; > + if (nfs4_select_rw_stateid(&arg.stateid, state, FMODE_WRITE, > + &lockowner) < 0) AFICS this means -EIO = lost lock. Why fail the setattr? the file handle is not bad. Why not send a ZERO_STATEID? At any rate, -EBADF looks wrong to me. -->Andy > + return -EBADF; > } else > nfs4_stateid_copy(&arg.stateid, &zero_stateid); > > -- > 1.8.5.3 > > -- > 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 -- 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
