diff options
author | Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> | 2017-12-05 15:32:25 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> | 2017-12-05 15:32:25 +0100 |
commit | ca0168e8a77cf833f8c9ac1d26a3a4012bab4f72 (patch) | |
tree | 3f16a5a564345566d6356b60654c3578264a408b | |
parent | Linux 4.15-rc1 (diff) | |
download | linux-ca0168e8a77cf833f8c9ac1d26a3a4012bab4f72.tar.xz linux-ca0168e8a77cf833f8c9ac1d26a3a4012bab4f72.zip |
alloc_super(): do ->s_umount initialization earlier
... so that failure exits could count on it having been
done.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-rw-r--r-- | fs/super.c | 37 |
1 files changed, 18 insertions, 19 deletions
diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c index d4e33e8f1e6f..7ff1349609e4 100644 --- a/fs/super.c +++ b/fs/super.c @@ -191,6 +191,24 @@ static struct super_block *alloc_super(struct file_system_type *type, int flags, INIT_LIST_HEAD(&s->s_mounts); s->s_user_ns = get_user_ns(user_ns); + init_rwsem(&s->s_umount); + lockdep_set_class(&s->s_umount, &type->s_umount_key); + /* + * sget() can have s_umount recursion. + * + * When it cannot find a suitable sb, it allocates a new + * one (this one), and tries again to find a suitable old + * one. + * + * In case that succeeds, it will acquire the s_umount + * lock of the old one. Since these are clearly distrinct + * locks, and this object isn't exposed yet, there's no + * risk of deadlocks. + * + * Annotate this by putting this lock in a different + * subclass. + */ + down_write_nested(&s->s_umount, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING); if (security_sb_alloc(s)) goto fail; @@ -218,25 +236,6 @@ static struct super_block *alloc_super(struct file_system_type *type, int flags, goto fail; if (list_lru_init_memcg(&s->s_inode_lru)) goto fail; - - init_rwsem(&s->s_umount); - lockdep_set_class(&s->s_umount, &type->s_umount_key); - /* - * sget() can have s_umount recursion. - * - * When it cannot find a suitable sb, it allocates a new - * one (this one), and tries again to find a suitable old - * one. - * - * In case that succeeds, it will acquire the s_umount - * lock of the old one. Since these are clearly distrinct - * locks, and this object isn't exposed yet, there's no - * risk of deadlocks. - * - * Annotate this by putting this lock in a different - * subclass. - */ - down_write_nested(&s->s_umount, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING); s->s_count = 1; atomic_set(&s->s_active, 1); mutex_init(&s->s_vfs_rename_mutex); |