On 25.01.2018 20:02, Liu Bo wrote:
> This regression is introduced in
> commit 3d48d9810de4 ("btrfs: Handle uninitialised inode eviction").
>
> There are two problems,
>
> a) it is ->destroy_inode() that does the final free on inode, not
> ->evict_inode(),
> b) clear_inode() must be called before ->evict_inode() returns.
>
> This could end up hitting BUG_ON(inode->i_state != (I_FREEING | I_CLEAR));
> in evict() because I_CLEAR is set in clear_inode().
>
Oops, It seems I've missed that when I wrote the original patch.
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@xxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: commit 3d48d9810de4 ("btrfs: Handle uninitialised inode eviction")
> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v4.7-rc6+
> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/inode.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> index 281a250..bc6ef73 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> @@ -5286,7 +5286,7 @@ void btrfs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
> trace_btrfs_inode_evict(inode);
>
> if (!root) {
> - kmem_cache_free(btrfs_inode_cachep, BTRFS_I(inode));
> + clear_inode(inode);
> return;
> }
>
>
--
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
