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