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; _