Re: hugetlb locking bug.

From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Fri Apr 15 2011 - 17:21:12 EST

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 16:57 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Because it doesn't use iget or unlock_new_inode, but rather calls
>> directly into new_inode().  It and other filesystems not using
>> unlock_new_inode will need a local copy of that logic.
> Is there a sane reason they do their own magic, and thus need a copy of
> the logic, instead of using the generic code that already has it?

Hmm. That all seems to be just an oversight.

Does this trivial one-liner work?

(Warning: whitespace damage and TOTALLY UNTESTED)



fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
index b9eeb1cd03ff..a14a6e03ec33 100644
--- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
@@ -491,6 +491,7 @@ static struct inode *hugetlbfs_get_inode(struct
super_block *sb, uid_t uid,
inode->i_op = &page_symlink_inode_operations;
+ unlock_new_inode(inode);
return inode;
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at