On 2018年07月08日 23:53, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 11:12:27AM +0800, Shan Hai wrote:The XFS_ILOCK_SHARED type lock is held in the xfs_ioc_fsgetxattr but does not released when the inode is in local format, fix it by eleasing the lock on the local format inode. Signed-off-by: Shan Hai <shan.hai@xxxxxxxxxx> --- fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c index 0ef5ece5634c..246562615ccd 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c @@ -907,7 +907,10 @@ xfs_ioc_fsgetxattr( } else { if (ip->i_df.if_flags & XFS_IFEXTENTS) fa.fsx_nextents = xfs_iext_count(&ip->i_df); - else + else if (ip->i_df.if_flags & XFS_IFINLINE) { + xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_SHARED); + return 0; + } else fa.fsx_nextents = ip->i_d.di_nextents; } xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_SHARED);This looks odd, and the changelog confuses even more. Please avoid the early return, which means we miss the copy_to_user of the fa struct. It seems to me like this should be something like: if (ip->i_df.if_flags & XFS_IFEXTENTS) fa.fsx_nextents = xfs_iext_count(&ip->i_df); esle if (ip->i_df.if_flags & XFS_IFINLINE) fa.fsx_nextents = 0; else fa.fsx_nextents = ip->i_d.di_nextents;
Agreed, I will double check this, thanks for the review. Thanks Shan Hai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
