* [PATCH 1/1] fs: fix lock imbalance in do_remount_sb()
@ 2009-05-13 19:21 Jiri Slaby
2009-05-13 23:08 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Slaby @ 2009-05-13 19:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: viro; +Cc: linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel, Jiri Slaby
Commit "Push BKL down into do_remount_sb()" pushed un/lock_kernel
into do_remount_sb but forgets to unlock it on fail paths. Fix
that.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>
---
fs/super.c | 12 +++++++++---
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
index e4a0c5b..a64f362 100644
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -548,18 +548,24 @@ int do_remount_sb(struct super_block *sb, int flags, void *data, int force)
if ((flags & MS_RDONLY) && !(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
if (force)
mark_files_ro(sb);
- else if (!fs_may_remount_ro(sb))
+ else if (!fs_may_remount_ro(sb)) {
+ unlock_kernel();
return -EBUSY;
+ }
retval = vfs_dq_off(sb, 1);
- if (retval < 0 && retval != -ENOSYS)
+ if (retval < 0 && retval != -ENOSYS) {
+ unlock_kernel();
return -EBUSY;
+ }
}
remount_rw = !(flags & MS_RDONLY) && (sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY);
if (sb->s_op->remount_fs) {
retval = sb->s_op->remount_fs(sb, &flags, data);
- if (retval)
+ if (retval) {
+ unlock_kernel();
return retval;
+ }
}
sb->s_flags = (sb->s_flags & ~MS_RMT_MASK) | (flags & MS_RMT_MASK);
unlock_kernel();
--
1.6.3
caught by stanse
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] fs: fix lock imbalance in do_remount_sb()
2009-05-13 19:21 [PATCH 1/1] fs: fix lock imbalance in do_remount_sb() Jiri Slaby
@ 2009-05-13 23:08 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2009-05-13 23:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Slaby; +Cc: viro, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel, jirislaby
On Wed, 13 May 2009 21:21:12 +0200
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com> wrote:
> Commit "Push BKL down into do_remount_sb()" pushed un/lock_kernel
> into do_remount_sb but forgets to unlock it on fail paths. Fix
> that.
>
argh, how many times must we teach ourselves this lesson? Perhaps we
can convert this function to have a single `return' to prevent
relapses?
> ---
> fs/super.c | 12 +++++++++---
> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
> index e4a0c5b..a64f362 100644
> --- a/fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/super.c
> @@ -548,18 +548,24 @@ int do_remount_sb(struct super_block *sb, int flags, void *data, int force)
> if ((flags & MS_RDONLY) && !(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
> if (force)
> mark_files_ro(sb);
> - else if (!fs_may_remount_ro(sb))
> + else if (!fs_may_remount_ro(sb)) {
> + unlock_kernel();
> return -EBUSY;
> + }
> retval = vfs_dq_off(sb, 1);
> - if (retval < 0 && retval != -ENOSYS)
> + if (retval < 0 && retval != -ENOSYS) {
> + unlock_kernel();
> return -EBUSY;
Strange that the code drops the vfs_dq_off() return value on the floor.
`man(2) mount' lists a great pile of possible errnos.
> + }
> }
> remount_rw = !(flags & MS_RDONLY) && (sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY);
>
> if (sb->s_op->remount_fs) {
> retval = sb->s_op->remount_fs(sb, &flags, data);
> - if (retval)
> + if (retval) {
> + unlock_kernel();
> return retval;
> + }
> }
> sb->s_flags = (sb->s_flags & ~MS_RMT_MASK) | (flags & MS_RMT_MASK);
> unlock_kernel();
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-05-13 23:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-05-13 19:21 [PATCH 1/1] fs: fix lock imbalance in do_remount_sb() Jiri Slaby
2009-05-13 23:08 ` Andrew Morton
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).