4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
commit 908a572b80f6e9577b45e81b3dfe2e22111286b8 upstream.
Using waitqueue_active() is racy. Make sure we issue a wake_up()
unconditionally after storing into fc->blocked. After that it's okay to
optimize with waitqueue_active() since the first wake up provides the
necessary barrier for all waiters, not the just the woken one.
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Fixes: 3c18ef8117f0 ("fuse: optimize wake_up")
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v3.10
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/fuse/dev.c | 15 +++++++++++----
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/fuse/dev.c
+++ b/fs/fuse/dev.c
@@ -383,12 +383,19 @@ static void request_end(struct fuse_conn
if (test_bit(FR_BACKGROUND, &req->flags)) {
spin_lock(&fc->lock);
clear_bit(FR_BACKGROUND, &req->flags);
- if (fc->num_background == fc->max_background)
+ if (fc->num_background == fc->max_background) {
fc->blocked = 0;
-
- /* Wake up next waiter, if any */
- if (!fc->blocked && waitqueue_active(&fc->blocked_waitq))
wake_up(&fc->blocked_waitq);
+ } else if (!fc->blocked) {
+ /*
+ * Wake up next waiter, if any. It's okay to use
+ * waitqueue_active(), as we've already synced up
+ * fc->blocked with waiters with the wake_up() call
+ * above.
+ */
+ if (waitqueue_active(&fc->blocked_waitq))
+ wake_up(&fc->blocked_waitq);
+ }
if (fc->num_background == fc->congestion_threshold &&
fc->connected && fc->bdi_initialized) {
