From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754264AbZIHLlE (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:41:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754131AbZIHLlE (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:41:04 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53073 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754107AbZIHLlD (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:41:03 -0400 From: Jan Kara To: LKML Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , hch@infradead.org, Jan Kara Subject: [PATCH] fs: Make sure data stored into inode is properly seen before unlocking new inode Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 13:41:03 +0200 Message-Id: <1252410063-26872-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.6.0.2 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In theory it could happen that on one CPU we initialize a new inode but clearing of I_NEW | I_LOCK gets reordered before some of the initialization. Thus on another CPU we return not fully uptodate inode from iget_locked(). This seems to fix a corruption issue on ext3 mounted over NFS. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara --- fs/inode.c | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) Since Al doesn't seem to be online, does anybody else have opinion on this patch? I can merge it via my tree but I'd like to get a review from someone else. diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c index 901bad1..e9a8e77 100644 --- a/fs/inode.c +++ b/fs/inode.c @@ -696,6 +696,7 @@ void unlock_new_inode(struct inode *inode) * just created it (so there can be no old holders * that haven't tested I_LOCK). */ + smp_mb(); WARN_ON((inode->i_state & (I_LOCK|I_NEW)) != (I_LOCK|I_NEW)); inode->i_state &= ~(I_LOCK|I_NEW); wake_up_inode(inode); -- 1.6.0.2