On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 01:33:41PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> The commit f7be2d7f594cbc ("xfs: push down inactive transaction
> mgmt for truncate") refactored the xfs_inactive() function
> in fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c. However, it also moved the call to
> xfs_idestroy_fork() from inside the xfs_ilock() critical section to
> outside. That was causing memory corruption and strange failures like
> deferencing NULL pointers in some circumstances.
>
> This patch moves the xfs_idestroy_fork() call back into an xfs_ilock()
> critical section to avoid memory corruption problem.
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@xxxxxx>
> ---
Interesting... so from your previous mail we have an inactive/reclaim
racing with an xfs_iflush_fork() of the attr fork, or something of that
nature? Is there a specific reproducer or is it some kind of stress
test?
Good catch in any case, it looks like a deviation from the previous
code...
> fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> index 6163767..31850fb 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> @@ -1900,8 +1900,11 @@ xfs_inactive(
> return;
> }
>
> - if (ip->i_afp)
> + if (ip->i_afp) {
> + xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> xfs_idestroy_fork(ip, XFS_ATTR_FORK);
> + xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> + }
It probably doesn't matter, but I wonder if it would be better to just
place the lock outside of the ip->i_afp check to preserve the original
behavior if nothing else...
Brian
>
> ASSERT(ip->i_d.di_anextents == 0);
>
> --
> 1.7.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
