Use i_writecount to control whether to get an fscache cookie in nfs_open() as
NFS does not do write caching yet.  I *think* this is the cause of a problem
encountered by Mark Moseley whereby __fscache_uncache_page() gets a NULL
pointer dereference because cookie->def is NULL:

BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000010
IP: [<ffffffff812a1903>] __fscache_uncache_page+0x23/0x160
PGD 0
Thread overran stack, or stack corrupted
Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP
Modules linked in: ...
CPU: 7 PID: 18993 Comm: php Not tainted 3.11.1 #1
Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R420/072XWF, BIOS 1.3.5 08/21/2012
task: ffff8804203460c0 ti: ffff880420346640
RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff812a1903>] __fscache_uncache_page+0x23/0x160
RSP: 0018:ffff8801053af878 EFLAGS: 00210286
RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff8800be2f8780 RCX: ffff88022ffae5e8
RDX: 0000000000004c66 RSI: ffffea00055ff440 RDI: ffff8800be2f8780
RBP: ffff8801053af898 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000003
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffffea00055ff440
R13: 0000000000001000 R14: ffff8800c50be538 R15: 0000000000000000
FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88042fc60000(0063) knlGS:00000000e439c700
CS: 0010 DS: 002b ES: 002b CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 0000000000000010 CR3: 0000000001d8f000 CR4: 00000000000607f0
Stack:
...
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff81365a72>] __nfs_fscache_invalidate_page+0x42/0x70
[<ffffffff813553d5>] nfs_invalidate_page+0x75/0x90
[<ffffffff811b8f5e>] truncate_inode_page+0x8e/0x90
[<ffffffff811b90ad>] truncate_inode_pages_range.part.12+0x14d/0x620
[<ffffffff81d6387d>] ? __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x1fd/0x2e0
[<ffffffff811b95d3>] truncate_inode_pages_range+0x53/0x70
[<ffffffff811b969d>] truncate_inode_pages+0x2d/0x40
[<ffffffff811b96ff>] truncate_pagecache+0x4f/0x70
[<ffffffff81356840>] nfs_setattr_update_inode+0xa0/0x120
[<ffffffff81368de4>] nfs3_proc_setattr+0xc4/0xe0
[<ffffffff81357f78>] nfs_setattr+0xc8/0x150
[<ffffffff8122d95b>] notify_change+0x1cb/0x390
[<ffffffff8120a55b>] do_truncate+0x7b/0xc0
[<ffffffff8121f96c>] do_last+0xa4c/0xfd0
[<ffffffff8121ffbc>] path_openat+0xcc/0x670
[<ffffffff81220a0e>] do_filp_open+0x4e/0xb0
[<ffffffff8120ba1f>] do_sys_open+0x13f/0x2b0
[<ffffffff8126aaf6>] compat_SyS_open+0x36/0x50
[<ffffffff81d7204c>] sysenter_dispatch+0x7/0x24

The code at the instruction pointer was disassembled:

> (gdb) disas __fscache_uncache_page
> Dump of assembler code for function __fscache_uncache_page:
> ...
> 0xffffffff812a18ff <+31>: mov 0x48(%rbx),%rax
> 0xffffffff812a1903 <+35>: cmpb $0x0,0x10(%rax)
> 0xffffffff812a1907 <+39>: je 0xffffffff812a19cd <__fscache_uncache_page+237>

These instructions make up:

	ASSERTCMP(cookie->def->type, !=, FSCACHE_COOKIE_TYPE_INDEX);

That cmpb is the faulting instruction (%rax is 0).  So cookie->def is NULL -
which presumably means that the cookie has already been at least partway
through __fscache_relinquish_cookie().

What I think may be happening is something like a three-way race on the same
file:

	PROCESS 1	PROCESS 2	PROCESS 3
	===============	===============	===============
	open(O_TRUNC|O_WRONLY)
			open(O_RDONLY)
					open(O_WRONLY)
	-->nfs_open()
	-->nfs_fscache_set_inode_cookie()
	nfs_fscache_inode_lock()
	nfs_fscache_disable_inode_cookie()
	__fscache_relinquish_cookie()
	nfs_inode->fscache = NULL
	<--nfs_fscache_set_inode_cookie()

			-->nfs_open()
			-->nfs_fscache_set_inode_cookie()
			nfs_fscache_inode_lock()
			nfs_fscache_enable_inode_cookie()
			__fscache_acquire_cookie()
			nfs_inode->fscache = cookie
			<--nfs_fscache_set_inode_cookie()
	<--nfs_open()
	-->nfs_setattr()
	...
	...
	-->nfs_invalidate_page()
	-->__nfs_fscache_invalidate_page()
	cookie = nfsi->fscache
					-->nfs_open()
					-->nfs_fscache_set_inode_cookie()
					nfs_fscache_inode_lock()
					nfs_fscache_disable_inode_cookie()
					-->__fscache_relinquish_cookie()
	-->__fscache_uncache_page(cookie)
	<crash>
					<--__fscache_relinquish_cookie()
					nfs_inode->fscache = NULL
					<--nfs_fscache_set_inode_cookie()

What is needed is something to prevent process #2 from reacquiring the cookie
- and I think checking i_writecount should do the trick.

It's also possible to have a two-way race on this if the file is opened
O_TRUNC|O_RDONLY instead.
Reported-by: NMark Moseley <moseleymark@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>