| Message ID | 1425513974-27153-1-git-send-email-jeff.layton@primarydata.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi Jeff, On 03/05/2015 01:06 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > Commit 8634b51f6ca2 (locks: convert lease handling to file_lock_context) > introduced a regression in the handling of lease upgrade/downgrades. > > In the event that we already have a lease on a file and are going to > either upgrade or downgrade it, we skip doing any list insertion or > deletion and skip to re-calling lm_setup on the existing lease. > > As of commit 8634b51f6ca2 however, we end up calling lm_setup on the > lease that was passed in, instead of on the existing lease. This causes > us to leak the fasync_struct that was allocated in the event that there > was not already an existing one (as it always appeared that there > wasn't one). > > Fixes: 8634b51f6ca2 (locks: convert lease handling to file_lock_context) Yes, that fixes the problem. Thanks! > Reported-by: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@primarydata.com> Tested-by: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de> cheers, daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 07:57:09 +0100 Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de> wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > On 03/05/2015 01:06 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Commit 8634b51f6ca2 (locks: convert lease handling to file_lock_context) > > introduced a regression in the handling of lease upgrade/downgrades. > > > > In the event that we already have a lease on a file and are going to > > either upgrade or downgrade it, we skip doing any list insertion or > > deletion and skip to re-calling lm_setup on the existing lease. > > > > As of commit 8634b51f6ca2 however, we end up calling lm_setup on the > > lease that was passed in, instead of on the existing lease. This causes > > us to leak the fasync_struct that was allocated in the event that there > > was not already an existing one (as it always appeared that there > > wasn't one). > > > > Fixes: 8634b51f6ca2 (locks: convert lease handling to file_lock_context) > > Yes, that fixes the problem. Thanks! > > > Reported-by: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@primarydata.com> > > Tested-by: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de> > > > cheers, > daniel Thanks for testing it! I'll let it soak in linux-next for a day or so and then send a pull request to Linus. Cheers!
diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c index 365c82e1b3a9..f1bad681fc1c 100644 --- a/fs/locks.c +++ b/fs/locks.c @@ -1665,7 +1665,8 @@ generic_add_lease(struct file *filp, long arg, struct file_lock **flp, void **pr } if (my_fl != NULL) { - error = lease->fl_lmops->lm_change(my_fl, arg, &dispose); + lease = my_fl; + error = lease->fl_lmops->lm_change(lease, arg, &dispose); if (error) goto out; goto out_setup;
Commit 8634b51f6ca2 (locks: convert lease handling to file_lock_context) introduced a regression in the handling of lease upgrade/downgrades. In the event that we already have a lease on a file and are going to either upgrade or downgrade it, we skip doing any list insertion or deletion and skip to re-calling lm_setup on the existing lease. As of commit 8634b51f6ca2 however, we end up calling lm_setup on the lease that was passed in, instead of on the existing lease. This causes us to leak the fasync_struct that was allocated in the event that there was not already an existing one (as it always appeared that there wasn't one). Fixes: 8634b51f6ca2 (locks: convert lease handling to file_lock_context) Reported-by: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@primarydata.com> --- fs/locks.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)