Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> >
> > This sounds like a bug that I posted a fix for a long time ago.
> > cramfs calls bforget on the superblock area, destroying that block of
> > the ramdisk, even when the ramdisk does not contain a cramfs file system.
> > Normally, bforget is called on block that really can be trashed,
> > such as blocks release by truncate or unlink.
>
> I'd really prefer just not letting bforget() touch BH_Protected buffers.
> bforget() is also used by other things than unlink/truncate: it's used by
> various partition codes etc, and it's used by the raid logic.
Yup, I backed out Adam's one-liner in favor of the attached one-liner.
Tested on 2.4.0, but should patch cleanly to just about anything. ;-)
BTW Linus - you were of course right on the cramfs wanting 4096
blocksize... but without this fix, that doesn't matter much. ;-)
regards,
David
-- David L. Parsley Network Administrator Roanoke College --------------E80008ACDF49B97EBECC34A4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="bforgetfix.diff" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="bforgetfix.diff"--- linux.linus/fs/buffer.c Wed Jan 3 23:45:26 2001 +++ linux/fs/buffer.c Wed Jan 10 15:49:36 2001 @@ -1145,13 +1145,15 @@ * free list if it can.. We can NOT free the buffer if: * - there are other users of it * - it is locked and thus can have active IO + * - it is marked BH_Protected */ void __bforget(struct buffer_head * buf) { /* grab the lru lock here to block bdflush. */ spin_lock(&lru_list_lock); write_lock(&hash_table_lock); - if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&buf->b_count) || buffer_locked(buf)) + if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&buf->b_count) || buffer_locked(buf) || + buffer_protected(buf)) goto in_use; __hash_unlink(buf); remove_inode_queue(buf);
--------------E80008ACDF49B97EBECC34A4--
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/