From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6F27F5E for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 14:59:19 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9079AC004 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:59:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.141]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id DdulrlA4BKrkQ3QH for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 12:59:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 07:59:10 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: use xfs_ilock_map_shared in xfs_attr_get Message-ID: <20131205205910.GD29897@dastard> References: <20131205155830.620826868@bombadil.infradead.org> <20131205155951.679310054@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131205155951.679310054@bombadil.infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 07:58:34AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > We might not have read in the extent list at this point, so make sure we > take the ilock exclusively if we have to do so. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_attr.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_attr.c > index b861270..5343034 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_attr.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_attr.c > @@ -164,6 +164,7 @@ xfs_attr_get( > { > int error; > struct xfs_name xname; > + uint lock_mode; > > XFS_STATS_INC(xs_attr_get); > > @@ -174,9 +175,9 @@ xfs_attr_get( > if (error) > return error; > > - xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_SHARED); > + lock_mode = xfs_ilock_map_shared(ip); > error = xfs_attr_get_int(ip, &xname, value, valuelenp, flags); > - xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_SHARED); > + xfs_iunlock_map_shared(ip, lock_mode); > return(error); > } I think the locking here should be moved inside xfs_attr_get_int() so that it uses the same locking pattern as xfs_attr_set() and xfs_attr_remove(). Also, xfs_attr_list() needs this treatment (the attr version of readdir) as well (and it has the locking inside xfs_attr_list_int(), too ;). It looks like xfs_readlink needs fixing, too. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs