Re: [PATCH 4/4] xfs: Protect xfs_file_aio_write() with sb_start_write - sb_end_write
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: 2012-01-12 21:29:41
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, linux-xfs, lkml
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: 2012-01-12 21:29:41
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, linux-xfs, lkml
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 02:20:53AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
Replace racy xfs_wait_for_freeze() check with reliable sb_start_write() - sb_end_write() locking. Due to lock ranking dictated by the page fault code we have to call sb_start_write() after we acquire ilock. CC: Ben Myers <redacted> CC: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> --- fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 6 ++++-- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c index 753ed9b..c5f879b 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c@@ -862,9 +862,11 @@ xfs_file_dio_aio_write( *iolock = XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED; } + sb_start_write(inode->i_sb); trace_xfs_file_direct_write(ip, count, iocb->ki_pos, 0); ret = generic_file_direct_write(iocb, iovp, &nr_segs, pos, &iocb->ki_pos, count, ocount); + sb_end_write(inode->i_sb);
What lock ordering do you have in mind? Explicit description in fs/super.c, please...