From: Filipe Manana <fdman...@suse.com>
If we failed to fully setup the whiteout inode during a rename operation
with the whiteout flag, we ended up leaking the inode, not decrementing
its link count nor removing all its items from the fs/subvol tree.
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdman...@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 12 ++++++------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index 09947cb..ab64721 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
@@ -9612,21 +9612,21 @@ static int btrfs_whiteout_for_rename(struct
btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
ret = btrfs_init_inode_security(trans, inode, dir,
&dentry->d_name);
if (ret)
- return ret;
+ goto out;
ret = btrfs_add_nondir(trans, dir, dentry,
inode, 0, index);
if (ret)
- return ret;
+ goto out;
ret = btrfs_update_inode(trans, root, inode);
- if (ret)
- return ret;
-
+out:
unlock_new_inode(inode);
+ if (ret)
+ inode_dec_link_count(inode);
iput(inode);
- return 0;
+ return ret;
}
static int btrfs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
--
2.7.0.rc3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
