3.16.40-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>
commit 89f39af129382a40d7cd1f6914617282cfeee28e upstream.
Change thaw_super() to check frozen != SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE rather than
frozen == SB_UNFROZEN, otherwise it can race with freeze_super() which
drops sb->s_umount after SB_FREEZE_WRITE to preserve the lock ordering.
In this case thaw_super() will wrongly call s_op->unfreeze_fs() before
it was actually frozen, and call sb_freeze_unlock() which leads to the
unbalanced percpu_up_write(). Unfortunately lockdep can't detect this,
so this triggers misc BUG_ON()'s in kernel/rcu/sync.c.
Reported-and-tested-by: Nikolay Borisov <ker...@kyup.com>
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk>
---
fs/super.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -1337,8 +1337,8 @@ int freeze_super(struct super_block *sb)
}
}
/*
- * This is just for debugging purposes so that fs can warn if it
- * sees write activity when frozen is set to SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE.
+ * For debugging purposes so that fs can warn if it sees write activity
+ * when frozen is set to SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE, and for thaw_super().
*/
sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE;
up_write(&sb->s_umount);
@@ -1357,7 +1357,7 @@ int thaw_super(struct super_block *sb)
int error;
down_write(&sb->s_umount);
- if (sb->s_writers.frozen == SB_UNFROZEN) {
+ if (sb->s_writers.frozen != SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE) {
up_write(&sb->s_umount);
return -EINVAL;
}
