| Message ID | 1382966114-18764-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fusionio.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:15:14AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > A user reported a list corruption warning from btrfs_remove_ordered_extent, it > is because we aren't taking the ordered_root_lock when we remove the inode from > the ordered operations list. Thanks, > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> For stable; it's been there since day 1. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c index bbb1a38..8a5eff3 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c @@ -537,7 +537,9 @@ void btrfs_remove_ordered_extent(struct inode *inode, */ if (RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&tree->tree) && !mapping_tagged(inode->i_mapping, PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY)) { + spin_lock(&root->fs_info->ordered_root_lock); list_del_init(&BTRFS_I(inode)->ordered_operations); + spin_unlock(&root->fs_info->ordered_root_lock); } if (!root->nr_ordered_extents) {
A user reported a list corruption warning from btrfs_remove_ordered_extent, it is because we aren't taking the ordered_root_lock when we remove the inode from the ordered operations list. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com> --- fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)