zero-length bvec segments are allowed in general, but not handled by bio
and down the block layer so filtered out. This inconsistency may be
confusing and prevent from optimisations. As zero-length segments are
useless and places that were generating them are patched, declare them
not allowed.
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
(cherry picked from commit 9b2e0016d04c6542ace0128eb82ecb3b10c97e43)
(cherry picked from commit 87afbd40acbb99860f846ad6f199e62e93be96c2)
(cherry picked from commit f0677085687d50b5ecd6e7a2e19e4aff23251cb6)
(cherry picked from commit affb154c088db678d4a541f8a4080fa5088cb10b)
(cherry picked from commit 9b383b80e8432af1d0421acf9287076db26996d7)
(cherry picked from commit f643066fcac50220888ecfe9b86c5d895d621648)
(cherry picked from commit d2f588cf9664d76f78287142f505e4f375503ae6)
commit 22e111ed6c83dcde3037fc81176012721bc34c0b upstream.
We should never lock two subdirectories without having taken
->s_vfs_rename_mutex; inode pointer order or not, the "order" proposed
in 28eceeda130f "fs: Lock moved directories" is not transitive, with
the usual consequences.
The rationale for locking renamed subdirectory in all cases was
the possibility of race between rename modifying .. in a subdirectory to
reflect the new parent and another thread modifying the same subdirectory.
For a lot of filesystems that's not a problem, but for some it can lead
to trouble (e.g. the case when short directory contents is kept in the
inode, but creating a file in it might push it across the size limit
and copy its contents into separate data block(s)).
However, we need that only in case when the parent does change -
otherwise ->rename() doesn't need to do anything with .. entry in the
first place. Some instances are lazy and do a tautological update anyway,
but it's really not hard to avoid.
Amended locking rules for rename():
find the parent(s) of source and target
if source and target have the same parent
lock the common parent
else
lock ->s_vfs_rename_mutex
lock both parents, in ancestor-first order; if neither
is an ancestor of another, lock the parent of source
first.
find the source and target.
if source and target have the same parent
if operation is an overwriting rename of a subdirectory
lock the target subdirectory
else
if source is a subdirectory
lock the source
if target is a subdirectory
lock the target
lock non-directories involved, in inode pointer order if both
source and target are such.
That way we are guaranteed that parents are locked (for obvious reasons),
that any renamed non-directory is locked (nfsd relies upon that),
that any victim is locked (emptiness check needs that, among other things)
and subdirectory that changes parent is locked (needed to protect the update
of .. entries). We are also guaranteed that any operation locking more
than one directory either takes ->s_vfs_rename_mutex or locks a parent
followed by its child.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 28eceeda130f "fs: Lock moved directories"
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
