lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patches in this message
/
Date
From
Subjectdlm patches for 2.6.27
Hi,

These are the pending dlm patches for 2.6.27. They are all trivial and
have been in linux-next for quite a while. All but the one from me have
appeared on the list already, so I'm just putting a log of all below.

Dave


commit 18c60c0a3b16fc7d6a55497a228602ad8509f838
Author: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@panasas.com>
Date: Mon Jun 30 19:59:14 2008 +0300

dlm: fix uninitialized variable for search_rsb_list callers

gcc 4.3.0 correctly emits the following warning.
search_rsb_list does not *r_ret if no dlm_rsb is found
and _search_rsb may pass the uninitialized value upstream
on the error path when both calls to search_rsb_list
return non-zero error.

The fix sets *r_ret to NULL on search_rsb_list's not-found path.

Signed-off-by: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@panasas.com>
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>

diff --git a/fs/dlm/lock.c b/fs/dlm/lock.c
index 7ba9586..724ddac 100644
--- a/fs/dlm/lock.c
+++ b/fs/dlm/lock.c
@@ -363,6 +363,7 @@ static int search_rsb_list(struct list_head *head, char *name, int len,
if (len == r->res_length && !memcmp(name, r->res_name, len))
goto found;
}
+ *r_ret = NULL;
return -EBADR;

found:
commit 311f6fc77c51926dbdfbeab0a5d88d70f01fa3f4
Author: Masatake YAMATO <yamato@redhat.com>
Date: Fri Jun 27 08:35:03 2008 -0500

dlm: release socket on error

It seems that `sock' allocated by sock_create_kern in
tcp_connect_to_sock() of dlm/fs/lowcomms.c is not released if
dlm_nodeid_to_addr an error.

Acked-by: Christine Caulfield <ccaulfie@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Masatake YAMATO <yamato@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>

diff --git a/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c b/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c
index 637018c..3962262 100644
--- a/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c
+++ b/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c
@@ -891,8 +891,10 @@ static void tcp_connect_to_sock(struct connection *con)
goto out_err;

memset(&saddr, 0, sizeof(saddr));
- if (dlm_nodeid_to_addr(con->nodeid, &saddr))
+ if (dlm_nodeid_to_addr(con->nodeid, &saddr)) {
+ sock_release(sock);
goto out_err;
+ }

sock->sk->sk_user_data = con;
con->rx_action = receive_from_sock;
commit 329fc4c37212588091b64bdf09afaeb18642aae2
Author: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Date: Tue May 20 12:18:10 2008 -0500

dlm: fix basts for granted CW waiting PR/CW

The fix in commit 3650925893469ccb03dbcc6a440c5d363350f591 was addressing
the case of a granted PR lock with waiting PR and CW locks. It's a
special case that requires forcing a CW bast. However, that forced CW
bast was incorrectly applying to a second condition where the granted
lock was CW. So, the holder of a CW lock could receive an extraneous CW
bast instead of a PR bast. This fix narrows the original special case to
what was intended.

Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>

diff --git a/fs/dlm/lock.c b/fs/dlm/lock.c
index 2d3d102..7ba9586 100644
--- a/fs/dlm/lock.c
+++ b/fs/dlm/lock.c
@@ -1782,7 +1782,8 @@ static void grant_pending_locks(struct dlm_rsb *r)

list_for_each_entry_safe(lkb, s, &r->res_grantqueue, lkb_statequeue) {
if (lkb->lkb_bastfn && lock_requires_bast(lkb, high, cw)) {
- if (cw && high == DLM_LOCK_PR)
+ if (cw && high == DLM_LOCK_PR &&
+ lkb->lkb_grmode == DLM_LOCK_PR)
queue_bast(r, lkb, DLM_LOCK_CW);
else
queue_bast(r, lkb, high);
commit 254ae43ab8d7877c980fca3636624e0777a70fa4
Author: Masatake YAMATO <yamato@redhat.com>
Date: Wed May 28 14:45:10 2008 +0900

dlm: check for null in device_write

If `device_write' method is called via "dlm-control",
file->private_data is NULL. (See ctl_device_open() in
user.c. ) Through proc->flags is read.

Signed-off-by: Masatake YAMATO <yamato@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>

diff --git a/fs/dlm/user.c b/fs/dlm/user.c
index ebbcf38..1aa76b3 100644
--- a/fs/dlm/user.c
+++ b/fs/dlm/user.c
@@ -538,7 +538,7 @@ static ssize_t device_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,

/* do we really need this? can a write happen after a close? */
if ((kbuf->cmd == DLM_USER_LOCK || kbuf->cmd == DLM_USER_UNLOCK) &&
- test_bit(DLM_PROC_FLAGS_CLOSING, &proc->flags))
+ (proc && test_bit(DLM_PROC_FLAGS_CLOSING, &proc->flags)))
return -EINVAL;

sigfillset(&allsigs);

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-14 22:23    [W:0.039 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site