summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/fs/jbd
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJan Kara <jack@suse.cz>2005-09-06 15:19:17 -0700
committerLinus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org>2005-09-07 16:57:57 -0700
commit4407c2b6b297339e296facf62e020cf66e55053d (patch)
tree485d60b1cb5c6013d09a0327355e216b202bd8ed /fs/jbd
parente39f07c83bac96850265b87a69dfc5c90ed4f1f5 (diff)
[PATCH] Fix race in do_get_write_access()
attached patch should fix the following race: Proc 1 Proc 2 __flush_batch() ll_rw_block() do_get_write_access() lock_buffer jh is only waiting for checkpoint -> b_transaction == NULL -> do nothing unlock_buffer test_set_buffer_locked() test_clear_buffer_dirty() __journal_file_buffer() change the data submit_bh() and we have sent wrong data to disk... We now clean the dirty buffer flag under buffer lock in all cases and hence we know that whenever a buffer is starting to be journaled we either finish the pending write-out before attaching a buffer to a transaction or we won't write the buffer until the transaction is going to be committed. The test in jbd_unexpected_dirty_buffer() is redundant - remove it. Furthermore we have to clear the buffer dirty bit under the buffer lock to prevent races with buffer write-out (and hence prevent returning a buffer with IO happening). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'fs/jbd')
-rw-r--r--fs/jbd/transaction.c39
1 files changed, 21 insertions, 18 deletions
diff --git a/fs/jbd/transaction.c b/fs/jbd/transaction.c
index 77b7662b840b..c6ec66fd8766 100644
--- a/fs/jbd/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/jbd/transaction.c
@@ -490,23 +490,21 @@ void journal_unlock_updates (journal_t *journal)
*/
static void jbd_unexpected_dirty_buffer(struct journal_head *jh)
{
- struct buffer_head *bh = jh2bh(jh);
int jlist;
- if (buffer_dirty(bh)) {
- /* If this buffer is one which might reasonably be dirty
- * --- ie. data, or not part of this journal --- then
- * we're OK to leave it alone, but otherwise we need to
- * move the dirty bit to the journal's own internal
- * JBDDirty bit. */
- jlist = jh->b_jlist;
-
- if (jlist == BJ_Metadata || jlist == BJ_Reserved ||
- jlist == BJ_Shadow || jlist == BJ_Forget) {
- if (test_clear_buffer_dirty(jh2bh(jh))) {
- set_bit(BH_JBDDirty, &jh2bh(jh)->b_state);
- }
- }
+ /* If this buffer is one which might reasonably be dirty
+ * --- ie. data, or not part of this journal --- then
+ * we're OK to leave it alone, but otherwise we need to
+ * move the dirty bit to the journal's own internal
+ * JBDDirty bit. */
+ jlist = jh->b_jlist;
+
+ if (jlist == BJ_Metadata || jlist == BJ_Reserved ||
+ jlist == BJ_Shadow || jlist == BJ_Forget) {
+ struct buffer_head *bh = jh2bh(jh);
+
+ if (test_clear_buffer_dirty(bh))
+ set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
}
}
@@ -574,9 +572,14 @@ repeat:
if (jh->b_next_transaction)
J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_next_transaction ==
transaction);
- JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Unexpected dirty buffer");
- jbd_unexpected_dirty_buffer(jh);
- }
+ }
+ /*
+ * In any case we need to clean the dirty flag and we must
+ * do it under the buffer lock to be sure we don't race
+ * with running write-out.
+ */
+ JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Unexpected dirty buffer");
+ jbd_unexpected_dirty_buffer(jh);
}
unlock_buffer(bh);