On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 12:39 -0700, Martin Bligh wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:49:23 +0400
> > From: Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]>
> > To: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
> > Subject: ext2 reservations (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23)
> >
> >
> >> ext2-reservations.patch
> >>
> >> Still needs decent testing.
> >
> > Was this oops silently fixed?
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/2/138
> > 2.6.21-rc2-mm1: EIP is at ext2_discard_reservation+0x1c/0x52
> >
> > I still have that ext2 partition backed up.
>
> Now I'm confused - I thought there was a latent issue there, and
> then we went back and revisited it, and we decided there wasn't ;-(
Well, I looked at the problem now and here is the fix :)
Greg, Please consider this for stable release also.
Thanks,
Badari
ext2 reservation fix - Alexey Dobriyan reported ext2 discard
reservation panic while ago (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/2/138).
If ext2_new_inode() fails for any reason it would end up calling
ext2_discard_reservation() (due to last iput). Normally, it does
nothing since we don't have a reservation window structure
allocated. But the NULL pointer check wouldn't work with slab
poisioning, and causes oops.
Fix is to initialize i_block_alloc_info to NULL in ext2_alloc_inode()
code instead of assuming that it would be NULL. Same fix already
exists in ext3 and ext4.
Signed-off-by: Badari Pulavarty <[email protected]>
fs/ext2/super.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
Index: linux-2.6.22/fs/ext2/super.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.22.orig/fs/ext2/super.c 2007-07-08 16:32:17.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.22/fs/ext2/super.c 2007-07-10 16:36:42.000000000 -0700
@@ -147,6 +147,7 @@ static struct inode *ext2_alloc_inode(st
ei->i_acl = EXT2_ACL_NOT_CACHED;
ei->i_default_acl = EXT2_ACL_NOT_CACHED;
#endif
+ ei->i_block_alloc_info = NULL;
ei->vfs_inode.i_version = 1;
return &ei->vfs_inode;
}
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:15:57 -0700
Badari Pulavarty <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, I looked at the problem now and here is the fix :)
whee, thanks.
> Greg, Please consider this for stable release also.
No, it is only relevant to -mm's ext2-reservations.patch.
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:55 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:15:57 -0700
> Badari Pulavarty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Well, I looked at the problem now and here is the fix :)
>
> whee, thanks.
>
> > Greg, Please consider this for stable release also.
>
> No, it is only relevant to -mm's ext2-reservations.patch.
Yes. Sorry. I was looking at -mm tree and assumed that
ext2-reservation code made into mainline also :(
Greg, please ignore the patch for stable.
Thanks,
Badari
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 05:04:17PM -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:55 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:15:57 -0700
> > Badari Pulavarty <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I looked at the problem now and here is the fix :)
> >
> > whee, thanks.
> >
> > > Greg, Please consider this for stable release also.
> >
> > No, it is only relevant to -mm's ext2-reservations.patch.
>
> Yes. Sorry. I was looking at -mm tree and assumed that
> ext2-reservation code made into mainline also :(
>
> Greg, please ignore the patch for stable.
Ok, dropped from my -stable queue mbox.
thanks,
greg k-h