Am Mittwoch 18 November 2009 22:28:27 schrieb briaeros007:
> Hello,
> For some days, i've got oops on my system and i've investigate it a bit.
> The trouble was with "posix_acl_equiv_mode" , and for some reason
> (corrupted metadata ?) btrfs sometimes call it with "acl"==NULL
> This function doesn't like it.
> So in my patch I've first put a little error protection around the
> call, and then avoid to call btrfs_set_acl with acl=NULL.
>
> I'm not sure if it's ok with best practice, but i've done the test
> which produce the oops, and know it doesn't (but some csum failed.
> Well if my btrfs is corrupted, it's comprehensible).
>
> The patch is the following.
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/acl.c b/fs/btrfs/acl.c
> index 3616042..f8ade24 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/acl.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/acl.c
> @@ -111,7 +111,8 @@ static int btrfs_set_acl(struct inode *inode,
> struct posix_acl *acl, int type)
> switch (type) {
> case ACL_TYPE_ACCESS:
> mode = inode->i_mode;
> - ret = posix_acl_equiv_mode(acl, &mode);
> + if (acl && mode)
> + ret = posix_acl_equiv_mode(acl, &mode);
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
> ret = 0;
> @@ -165,12 +166,13 @@ static int btrfs_xattr_set_acl(struct inode
> *inode, int type,
> } else if (IS_ERR(acl)) {
> return PTR_ERR(acl);
> }
> + else
> + {
> + ret = btrfs_set_acl(inode, acl, type);
> + posix_acl_release(acl);
> + }
> }
>
> - ret = btrfs_set_acl(inode, acl, type);
> -
> - posix_acl_release(acl);
> -
> return ret;
> }
Shouldn't this go upstream and into stable review?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
