This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply
it?
------------------
From: "Vahram Martirosyan <[email protected]>"
commit e9b376671910d105c5e61103111b96209c729529 upstream
The mentioned functions do not pay attention to the error codes returned
by the functions updateSuper(), lmLogInit() and lmLogShutdown(). It brings
to system crash later when writing to log.
The patch adds corresponding code to check and return the error codes
and to print correct error messages in case of errors.
Found by Linux File System Verification project (linuxtesting.org).
Signed-off-by: Vahram Martirosyan <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Gu Zheng <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dave Kleikamp <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jonghwan Choi <[email protected]>
---
fs/jfs/super.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/jfs/super.c b/fs/jfs/super.c
index 1a543be..2502d39 100644
--- a/fs/jfs/super.c
+++ b/fs/jfs/super.c
@@ -611,11 +611,28 @@ static int jfs_freeze(struct super_block *sb)
{
struct jfs_sb_info *sbi = JFS_SBI(sb);
struct jfs_log *log = sbi->log;
+ int rc = 0;
if (!(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
txQuiesce(sb);
- lmLogShutdown(log);
- updateSuper(sb, FM_CLEAN);
+ rc = lmLogShutdown(log);
+ if (rc) {
+ jfs_error(sb, "jfs_freeze: lmLogShutdown failed");
+
+ /* let operations fail rather than hang */
+ txResume(sb);
+
+ return rc;
+ }
+ rc = updateSuper(sb, FM_CLEAN);
+ if (rc) {
+ jfs_err("jfs_freeze: updateSuper failed\n");
+ /*
+ * Don't fail here. Everything succeeded except
+ * marking the superblock clean, so there's really
+ * no harm in leaving it frozen for now.
+ */
+ }
}
return 0;
}
@@ -627,13 +644,18 @@ static int jfs_unfreeze(struct super_block *sb)
int rc = 0;
if (!(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
- updateSuper(sb, FM_MOUNT);
- if ((rc = lmLogInit(log)))
- jfs_err("jfs_unlock failed with return code %d",
rc);
- else
- txResume(sb);
+ rc = updateSuper(sb, FM_MOUNT);
+ if (rc) {
+ jfs_error(sb, "jfs_unfreeze: updateSuper failed");
+ goto out;
+ }
+ rc = lmLogInit(log);
+ if (rc)
+ jfs_error(sb, "jfs_unfreeze: lmLogInit failed");
+out:
+ txResume(sb);
}
- return 0;
+ return rc;
}
static struct dentry *jfs_do_mount(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
--
1.7.9.5
On 06/03/2013 09:15 PM, Jonghwan Choi wrote:
> This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply
> it?
I'm kind of on the fence on this one. I believe the failure here was
triggered by induced errors to check the error paths. I'm not aware of a
real-world crash due to the problem being fixed here. Of course, it's
possible, but I don't think it's very likely.
Thanks,
Dave
>
> ------------------
>
> From: "Vahram Martirosyan <[email protected]>"
>
> commit e9b376671910d105c5e61103111b96209c729529 upstream
>
> The mentioned functions do not pay attention to the error codes returned
> by the functions updateSuper(), lmLogInit() and lmLogShutdown(). It brings
> to system crash later when writing to log.
>
> The patch adds corresponding code to check and return the error codes
> and to print correct error messages in case of errors.
>
> Found by Linux File System Verification project (linuxtesting.org).
>
> Signed-off-by: Vahram Martirosyan <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Gu Zheng <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Kleikamp <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jonghwan Choi <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/jfs/super.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/jfs/super.c b/fs/jfs/super.c
> index 1a543be..2502d39 100644
> --- a/fs/jfs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/jfs/super.c
> @@ -611,11 +611,28 @@ static int jfs_freeze(struct super_block *sb)
> {
> struct jfs_sb_info *sbi = JFS_SBI(sb);
> struct jfs_log *log = sbi->log;
> + int rc = 0;
>
> if (!(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
> txQuiesce(sb);
> - lmLogShutdown(log);
> - updateSuper(sb, FM_CLEAN);
> + rc = lmLogShutdown(log);
> + if (rc) {
> + jfs_error(sb, "jfs_freeze: lmLogShutdown failed");
> +
> + /* let operations fail rather than hang */
> + txResume(sb);
> +
> + return rc;
> + }
> + rc = updateSuper(sb, FM_CLEAN);
> + if (rc) {
> + jfs_err("jfs_freeze: updateSuper failed\n");
> + /*
> + * Don't fail here. Everything succeeded except
> + * marking the superblock clean, so there's really
> + * no harm in leaving it frozen for now.
> + */
> + }
> }
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -627,13 +644,18 @@ static int jfs_unfreeze(struct super_block *sb)
> int rc = 0;
>
> if (!(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
> - updateSuper(sb, FM_MOUNT);
> - if ((rc = lmLogInit(log)))
> - jfs_err("jfs_unlock failed with return code %d",
> rc);
> - else
> - txResume(sb);
> + rc = updateSuper(sb, FM_MOUNT);
> + if (rc) {
> + jfs_error(sb, "jfs_unfreeze: updateSuper failed");
> + goto out;
> + }
> + rc = lmLogInit(log);
> + if (rc)
> + jfs_error(sb, "jfs_unfreeze: lmLogInit failed");
> +out:
> + txResume(sb);
> }
> - return 0;
> + return rc;
> }
>
> static struct dentry *jfs_do_mount(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
>
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 08:27:42AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On 06/03/2013 09:15 PM, Jonghwan Choi wrote:
> > This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply
> > it?
>
> I'm kind of on the fence on this one. I believe the failure here was
> triggered by induced errors to check the error paths. I'm not aware of a
> real-world crash due to the problem being fixed here. Of course, it's
> possible, but I don't think it's very likely.
Thanks for letting us know, I'll not apply it.
greg k-h