On Apr 23, 2009, at 9:18 PM, Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
We had some systems crash with this stack:
[<a00000010000cb20>] ia64_leave_kernel+0x0/0x280
[<a00000021291ca00>] xfs_bmbt_get_startoff+0x0/0x20 [xfs]
[<a0000002129080b0>] xfs_bmap_last_offset+0x210/0x280 [xfs]
[<a00000021295b010>] xfs_file_last_byte+0x70/0x1a0 [xfs]
[<a00000021295b200>] xfs_itruncate_start+0xc0/0x1a0 [xfs]
[<a0000002129935f0>] xfs_inactive_free_eofblocks+0x290/0x460 [xfs]
[<a000000212998fb0>] xfs_release+0x1b0/0x240 [xfs]
[<a0000002129ad930>] xfs_file_release+0x70/0xa0 [xfs]
[<a000000100162ea0>] __fput+0x1a0/0x420
[<a000000100163160>] fput+0x40/0x60
The problem here is that xfs_file_last_byte() does not acquire the
inode lock and can therefore race with another thread that is
modifying
the extext list. While xfs_bmap_last_offset() is trying to lookup
what was the last extent some extents were merged and the extent list
shrunk so the index we lookup is now beyond the end of the extent list
and potentially in a freed buffer.
Looks good. Though, I'd wish to be able to reproduce it without
the patch, and see it going away with the one.
Reviewed-by: Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx>
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
index e7ae08d..cf62d9d 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
@@ -1258,8 +1258,10 @@ xfs_file_last_byte(
* necessary.
*/
if (ip->i_df.if_flags & XFS_IFEXTENTS) {
+ xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_SHARED);
error = xfs_bmap_last_offset(NULL, ip, &last_block,
XFS_DATA_FORK);
+ xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_SHARED);
if (error) {
last_block = 0;
}
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
|