This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
Btrfs: send, don't leave without decrementing clone root's send_progress
to the 4.0-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
btrfs-send-don-t-leave-without-decrementing-clone-root-s-send_progress.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.0 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.
>From 2f1f465ae6da244099af55c066e5355abd8ff620 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 20:53:53 +0000
Subject: Btrfs: send, don't leave without decrementing clone root's send_progress
From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
commit 2f1f465ae6da244099af55c066e5355abd8ff620 upstream.
If the clone root was not readonly or the dead flag was set on it, we were
leaving without decrementing the root's send_progress counter (and before
we just incremented it). If a concurrent snapshot deletion was in progress
and ended up being aborted, it would be impossible to later attempt to
delete again the snapshot, since the root's send_in_progress counter could
never go back to 0.
We were also setting clone_sources_to_rollback to i + 1 too early - if we
bailed out because the clone root we got is not readonly or flagged as dead
we ended up later derreferencing a null pointer because we didn't assign
the clone root to sctx->clone_roots[i].root:
for (i = 0; sctx && i < clone_sources_to_rollback; i++)
btrfs_root_dec_send_in_progress(
sctx->clone_roots[i].root);
So just don't increment the send_in_progress counter if the root is readonly
or flagged as dead.
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/send.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/btrfs/send.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c
@@ -5852,9 +5852,7 @@ long btrfs_ioctl_send(struct file *mnt_f
ret = PTR_ERR(clone_root);
goto out;
}
- clone_sources_to_rollback = i + 1;
spin_lock(&clone_root->root_item_lock);
- clone_root->send_in_progress++;
if (!btrfs_root_readonly(clone_root) ||
btrfs_root_dead(clone_root)) {
spin_unlock(&clone_root->root_item_lock);
@@ -5862,10 +5860,12 @@ long btrfs_ioctl_send(struct file *mnt_f
ret = -EPERM;
goto out;
}
+ clone_root->send_in_progress++;
spin_unlock(&clone_root->root_item_lock);
srcu_read_unlock(&fs_info->subvol_srcu, index);
sctx->clone_roots[i].root = clone_root;
+ clone_sources_to_rollback = i + 1;
}
vfree(clone_sources_tmp);
clone_sources_tmp = NULL;
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from fdmanana@xxxxxxxx are
queue-4.0/btrfs-send-add-missing-check-for-dead-clone-root.patch
queue-4.0/btrfs-send-don-t-leave-without-decrementing-clone-root-s-send_progress.patch
queue-4.0/btrfs-fix-range-cloning-when-same-inode-used-as-source-and-destination.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in