| Message ID | 20190503151007.75525-1-josef@toxicpanda.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | btrfs: don't double unlock on error in btrfs_punch_hole | expand |
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 4:21 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote: > > If we have an error writing out a delalloc range in > btrfs_punch_hole_lock_range we'll unlock the inode and then goto > out_only_mutex, where we will again unlock the inode. This is bad, > don't do this. > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> Looks good, I introduced the double unlock accidentally. > --- > fs/btrfs/file.c | 4 +--- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c > index 7f7833149cb7..d23ea0b388e0 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/file.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c > @@ -2554,10 +2554,8 @@ static int btrfs_punch_hole(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t len) > > ret = btrfs_punch_hole_lock_range(inode, lockstart, lockend, > &cached_state); > - if (ret) { > - inode_unlock(inode); > + if (ret) > goto out_only_mutex; > - } > > path = btrfs_alloc_path(); > if (!path) { > -- > 2.13.5 >
On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 16:25 +0100, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 4:21 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> > wrote: > > If we have an error writing out a delalloc range in > > btrfs_punch_hole_lock_range we'll unlock the inode and then goto > > out_only_mutex, where we will again unlock the inode. This is bad, > > don't do this. > > > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> > > Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > > Looks good, I introduced the double unlock accidentally. Does the patch need a Fixes: tag so the -stable people know how far to backport it?
On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 03:31:33PM +0000, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 16:25 +0100, Filipe Manana wrote: > > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 4:21 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> > > wrote: > > > If we have an error writing out a delalloc range in > > > btrfs_punch_hole_lock_range we'll unlock the inode and then goto > > > out_only_mutex, where we will again unlock the inode. This is bad, > > > don't do this. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > > > > Looks good, I introduced the double unlock accidentally. > > Does the patch need a Fixes: tag so the -stable > people know how far to backport it? I add the tags.
On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 11:10:06AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > If we have an error writing out a delalloc range in > btrfs_punch_hole_lock_range we'll unlock the inode and then goto > out_only_mutex, where we will again unlock the inode. This is bad, > don't do this. > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Added to misc-next, thanks.
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c index 7f7833149cb7..d23ea0b388e0 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/file.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c @@ -2554,10 +2554,8 @@ static int btrfs_punch_hole(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t len) ret = btrfs_punch_hole_lock_range(inode, lockstart, lockend, &cached_state); - if (ret) { - inode_unlock(inode); + if (ret) goto out_only_mutex; - } path = btrfs_alloc_path(); if (!path) {
If we have an error writing out a delalloc range in btrfs_punch_hole_lock_range we'll unlock the inode and then goto out_only_mutex, where we will again unlock the inode. This is bad, don't do this. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> --- fs/btrfs/file.c | 4 +--- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)