1. 13 10月, 2010 1 次提交
  2. 12 10月, 2010 2 次提交
  3. 09 10月, 2010 1 次提交
  4. 08 10月, 2010 7 次提交
  5. 07 10月, 2010 6 次提交
  6. 04 10月, 2010 2 次提交
    • C
      writeback: always use sb->s_bdi for writeback purposes · aaead25b
      Christoph Hellwig 提交于
      We currently use struct backing_dev_info for various different purposes.
      Originally it was introduced to describe a backing device which includes
      an unplug and congestion function and various bits of readahead information
      and VM-relevant flags.  We're also using for tracking dirty inodes for
      writeback.
      
      To make writeback properly find all inodes we need to only access the
      per-filesystem backing_device pointed to by the superblock in ->s_bdi
      inside the writeback code, and not the instances pointeded to by
      inode->i_mapping->backing_dev which can be overriden by special devices
      or might not be set at all by some filesystems.
      
      Long term we should split out the writeback-relevant bits of struct
      backing_device_info (which includes more than the current bdi_writeback)
      and only point to it from the superblock while leaving the traditional
      backing device as a separate structure that can be overriden by devices.
      
      The one exception for now is the block device filesystem which really
      wants different writeback contexts for it's different (internal) inodes
      to handle the writeout more efficiently.  For now we do this with
      a hack in fs-writeback.c because we're so late in the cycle, but in
      the future I plan to replace this with a superblock method that allows
      for multiple writeback contexts per filesystem.
      Signed-off-by: NChristoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
      Signed-off-by: NJens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>
      aaead25b
    • G
      fuse: Initialize total_len in fuse_retrieve() · 0157443c
      Geert Uytterhoeven 提交于
      fs/fuse/dev.c:1357: warning: ‘total_len’ may be used uninitialized in this
      function
      
      Initialize total_len to zero, else its value will be undefined.
      Signed-off-by: NGeert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
      Signed-off-by: NMiklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>
      0157443c
  7. 02 10月, 2010 4 次提交
    • F
      reiserfs: fix unwanted reiserfs lock recursion · 9d8117e7
      Frederic Weisbecker 提交于
      Prevent from recursively locking the reiserfs lock in reiserfs_unpack()
      because we may call journal_begin() that requires the lock to be taken
      only once, otherwise it won't be able to release the lock while taking
      other mutexes, ending up in inverted dependencies between the journal
      mutex and the reiserfs lock for example.
      
      This fixes:
      
        =======================================================
        [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
        2.6.35.4.4a #3
        -------------------------------------------------------
        lilo/1620 is trying to acquire lock:
         (&journal->j_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<d0325bff>] do_journal_begin_r+0x7f/0x340 [reiserfs]
      
        but task is already holding lock:
         (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<d032a278>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40 [reiserfs]
      
        which lock already depends on the new lock.
      
        the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
      
        -> #1 (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}:
               [<c10562b7>] lock_acquire+0x67/0x80
               [<c12facad>] __mutex_lock_common+0x4d/0x410
               [<c12fb0c8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x18/0x20
               [<d032a278>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40 [reiserfs]
               [<d0325c06>] do_journal_begin_r+0x86/0x340 [reiserfs]
               [<d0325f77>] journal_begin+0x77/0x140 [reiserfs]
               [<d0315be4>] reiserfs_remount+0x224/0x530 [reiserfs]
               [<c10b6a20>] do_remount_sb+0x60/0x110
               [<c10cee25>] do_mount+0x625/0x790
               [<c10cf014>] sys_mount+0x84/0xb0
               [<c12fca3d>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
      
        -> #0 (&journal->j_mutex){+.+...}:
               [<c10560f6>] __lock_acquire+0x1026/0x1180
               [<c10562b7>] lock_acquire+0x67/0x80
               [<c12facad>] __mutex_lock_common+0x4d/0x410
               [<c12fb0c8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x18/0x20
               [<d0325bff>] do_journal_begin_r+0x7f/0x340 [reiserfs]
               [<d0325f77>] journal_begin+0x77/0x140 [reiserfs]
               [<d0326271>] reiserfs_persistent_transaction+0x41/0x90 [reiserfs]
               [<d030d06c>] reiserfs_get_block+0x22c/0x1530 [reiserfs]
               [<c10db9db>] __block_prepare_write+0x1bb/0x3a0
               [<c10dbbe6>] block_prepare_write+0x26/0x40
               [<d030b738>] reiserfs_prepare_write+0x88/0x170 [reiserfs]
               [<d03294d6>] reiserfs_unpack+0xe6/0x120 [reiserfs]
               [<d0329782>] reiserfs_ioctl+0x272/0x320 [reiserfs]
               [<c10c3188>] vfs_ioctl+0x28/0xa0
               [<c10c3bbd>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x32d/0x5c0
               [<c10c3eb3>] sys_ioctl+0x63/0x70
               [<c12fca3d>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
      
        other info that might help us debug this:
      
        2 locks held by lilo/1620:
         #0:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){+.+.+.}, at: [<d032945a>] reiserfs_unpack+0x6a/0x120 [reiserfs]
         #1:  (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<d032a278>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40 [reiserfs]
      
        stack backtrace:
        Pid: 1620, comm: lilo Not tainted 2.6.35.4.4a #3
        Call Trace:
         [<c10560f6>] __lock_acquire+0x1026/0x1180
         [<c10562b7>] lock_acquire+0x67/0x80
         [<c12facad>] __mutex_lock_common+0x4d/0x410
         [<c12fb0c8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x18/0x20
         [<d0325bff>] do_journal_begin_r+0x7f/0x340 [reiserfs]
         [<d0325f77>] journal_begin+0x77/0x140 [reiserfs]
         [<d0326271>] reiserfs_persistent_transaction+0x41/0x90 [reiserfs]
         [<d030d06c>] reiserfs_get_block+0x22c/0x1530 [reiserfs]
         [<c10db9db>] __block_prepare_write+0x1bb/0x3a0
         [<c10dbbe6>] block_prepare_write+0x26/0x40
         [<d030b738>] reiserfs_prepare_write+0x88/0x170 [reiserfs]
         [<d03294d6>] reiserfs_unpack+0xe6/0x120 [reiserfs]
         [<d0329782>] reiserfs_ioctl+0x272/0x320 [reiserfs]
         [<c10c3188>] vfs_ioctl+0x28/0xa0
         [<c10c3bbd>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x32d/0x5c0
         [<c10c3eb3>] sys_ioctl+0x63/0x70
         [<c12fca3d>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
      Reported-by: NJarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
      Tested-by: NJarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
      Signed-off-by: NFrederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
      Cc: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
      Cc: All since 2.6.32 <stable@kernel.org>
      Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
      Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      9d8117e7
    • F
      reiserfs: fix dependency inversion between inode and reiserfs mutexes · 3f259d09
      Frederic Weisbecker 提交于
      The reiserfs mutex already depends on the inode mutex, so we can't lock
      the inode mutex in reiserfs_unpack() without using the safe locking API,
      because reiserfs_unpack() is always called with the reiserfs mutex locked.
      
      This fixes:
      
        =======================================================
        [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
        2.6.35c #13
        -------------------------------------------------------
        lilo/1606 is trying to acquire lock:
         (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){+.+.+.}, at: [<d0329450>] reiserfs_unpack+0x60/0x110 [reiserfs]
      
        but task is already holding lock:
         (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<d032a268>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40 [reiserfs]
      
        which lock already depends on the new lock.
      
        the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
      
        -> #1 (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}:
               [<c1056347>] lock_acquire+0x67/0x80
               [<c12f083d>] __mutex_lock_common+0x4d/0x410
               [<c12f0c58>] mutex_lock_nested+0x18/0x20
               [<d032a268>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40 [reiserfs]
               [<d0329e9a>] reiserfs_lookup_privroot+0x2a/0x90 [reiserfs]
               [<d0316b81>] reiserfs_fill_super+0x941/0xe60 [reiserfs]
               [<c10b7d17>] get_sb_bdev+0x117/0x170
               [<d0313e21>] get_super_block+0x21/0x30 [reiserfs]
               [<c10b74ba>] vfs_kern_mount+0x6a/0x1b0
               [<c10b7659>] do_kern_mount+0x39/0xe0
               [<c10cebe0>] do_mount+0x340/0x790
               [<c10cf0b4>] sys_mount+0x84/0xb0
               [<c12f25cd>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
      
        -> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){+.+.+.}:
               [<c1056186>] __lock_acquire+0x1026/0x1180
               [<c1056347>] lock_acquire+0x67/0x80
               [<c12f083d>] __mutex_lock_common+0x4d/0x410
               [<c12f0c58>] mutex_lock_nested+0x18/0x20
               [<d0329450>] reiserfs_unpack+0x60/0x110 [reiserfs]
               [<d0329772>] reiserfs_ioctl+0x272/0x320 [reiserfs]
               [<c10c3228>] vfs_ioctl+0x28/0xa0
               [<c10c3c5d>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x32d/0x5c0
               [<c10c3f53>] sys_ioctl+0x63/0x70
               [<c12f25cd>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
      
        other info that might help us debug this:
      
        1 lock held by lilo/1606:
         #0:  (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<d032a268>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40 [reiserfs]
      
        stack backtrace:
        Pid: 1606, comm: lilo Not tainted 2.6.35c #13
        Call Trace:
         [<c1056186>] __lock_acquire+0x1026/0x1180
         [<c1056347>] lock_acquire+0x67/0x80
         [<c12f083d>] __mutex_lock_common+0x4d/0x410
         [<c12f0c58>] mutex_lock_nested+0x18/0x20
         [<d0329450>] reiserfs_unpack+0x60/0x110 [reiserfs]
         [<d0329772>] reiserfs_ioctl+0x272/0x320 [reiserfs]
         [<c10c3228>] vfs_ioctl+0x28/0xa0
         [<c10c3c5d>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x32d/0x5c0
         [<c10c3f53>] sys_ioctl+0x63/0x70
         [<c12f25cd>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
      Reported-by: NJarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
      Tested-by: NJarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
      Signed-off-by: NFrederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
      Cc: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
      Cc: <stable@kernel.org>		[2.6.32 and later]
      Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
      Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      3f259d09
    • J
      proc: make /proc/pid/limits world readable · 3036e7b4
      Jiri Olsa 提交于
      Having the limits file world readable will ease the task of system
      management on systems where root privileges might be restricted.
      
      Having admin restricted with root priviledges, he/she could not check
      other users process' limits.
      
      Also it'd align with most of the /proc stat files.
      Signed-off-by: NJiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
      Acked-by: NNeil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
      Cc: Eugene Teo <eugene@redhat.com>
      Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
      Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      3036e7b4
    • J
      cifs: prevent infinite recursion in cifs_reconnect_tcon · f569599a
      Jeff Layton 提交于
      cifs_reconnect_tcon is called from smb_init. After a successful
      reconnect, cifs_reconnect_tcon will call reset_cifs_unix_caps. That
      function will, in turn call CIFSSMBQFSUnixInfo and CIFSSMBSetFSUnixInfo.
      Those functions also call smb_init.
      
      It's possible for the session and tcon reconnect to succeed, and then
      for another cifs_reconnect to occur before CIFSSMBQFSUnixInfo or
      CIFSSMBSetFSUnixInfo to be called. That'll cause those functions to call
      smb_init and cifs_reconnect_tcon again, ad infinitum...
      
      Break the infinite recursion by having those functions use a new
      smb_init variant that doesn't attempt to perform a reconnect.
      Reported-and-Tested-by: NMichal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz>
      Signed-off-by: NJeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
      Signed-off-by: NSteve French <sfrench@us.ibm.com>
      f569599a
  8. 30 9月, 2010 17 次提交