Previously, there was a erroneous scenario like below.
thread 1:                       thread 2:
 f2fs_unlink
  - acquire_orphan_inode
    : sbi->n_orphans++           write_checkpoint
                                 - block_operations
                                  : f2fs_lock_all
                                 - do_checkpoint
                                  : write orphan blocks with sbi->n_orphans
                                 - unblock_operations
  - f2fs_lock_op
  - release_orphan_inode
  - f2fs_unlock_op

During the checkpoint by thread 2, f2fs stores a wrong orphan block according
to the wrong sbi->n_orphans.
To avoid this, simply we should make cover acquire_orphan_inode too with
f2fs_lock_op.

Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk....@samsung.com>
---
 fs/f2fs/namei.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/namei.c b/fs/f2fs/namei.c
index 29f73fd..575adac 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/namei.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/namei.c
@@ -228,14 +228,14 @@ static int f2fs_unlink(struct inode *dir, struct dentry 
*dentry)
        if (!de)
                goto fail;
 
+       f2fs_lock_op(sbi);
        err = acquire_orphan_inode(sbi);
        if (err) {
+               f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
                kunmap(page);
                f2fs_put_page(page, 0);
                goto fail;
        }
-
-       f2fs_lock_op(sbi);
        f2fs_delete_entry(de, page, inode);
        f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
 
-- 
1.8.4.474.g128a96c

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to