Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> reiserfs_cache_default_acl() should return whether we successfully found the
> acl or not. We have to return correct value even if reiserfs_get_acl() returns
> error code and not just 0. Otherwise callers such as reiserfs_mkdir() can
> unnecessarily lock the xattrs and later functions such as reiserfs_new_inode()
> fail to notice that we have already taken the lock and try to take it again
> with obvious consequences.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> diff -rupX /home/jack/.kerndiffexclude
> linux-2.6.5-SLES9_SP3_BRANCH/fs/reiserfs/xattr_acl.c
> linux-2.6.5-SLES9_SP3_BRANCH-1-reiser_xattr_fix/fs/reiserfs/xattr_acl.c
> --- linux-2.6.5-SLES9_SP3_BRANCH/fs/reiserfs/xattr_acl.c 2006-01-21
> 03:02:06.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.5-SLES9_SP3_BRANCH-1-reiser_xattr_fix/fs/reiserfs/xattr_acl.c
> 2006-01-21 09:09:04.000000000 +0100
> @@ -410,8 +410,10 @@ reiserfs_cache_default_acl (struct inode
> acl = reiserfs_get_acl (inode, ACL_TYPE_DEFAULT);
> reiserfs_read_unlock_xattrs (inode->i_sb);
> reiserfs_read_unlock_xattr_i (inode);
> - ret = acl ? 1 : 0;
> + if (!acl || IS_ERR(acl))
> + return 0;
> posix_acl_release (acl);
> + ret = 1;
> }
>
> return ret;
Your email client did something ghastly to this patch. Please fix it.
I typed it in again. While I was there I structured it a bit more nicely.
--- 25/fs/reiserfs/xattr_acl.c~fix-reiserfs-deadlock Fri Apr 21 15:15:10 2006
+++ 25-akpm/fs/reiserfs/xattr_acl.c Fri Apr 21 15:17:40 2006
@@ -408,8 +408,9 @@ int reiserfs_cache_default_acl(struct in
acl = reiserfs_get_acl(inode, ACL_TYPE_DEFAULT);
reiserfs_read_unlock_xattrs(inode->i_sb);
reiserfs_read_unlock_xattr_i(inode);
- ret = acl ? 1 : 0;
- posix_acl_release(acl);
+ ret = (acl && !IS_ERR(acl));
+ if (ret)
+ posix_acl_release(acl);
}
return ret;
_
