After updating bb_free in mb_free_blocks, it is possible to return without updating bb_fragments because the block being freed is found to have already been freed, which leads to inconsistency between bb_free and bb_fragments.
Since the group may be unlocked in ext4_grp_locked_error(), this can lead to problems such as dividing by zero when calculating the average fragment length. Therefore, to ensure consistency, move the update of bb_free to after the block double-free check.
Fixes: eabe0444df90 ("ext4: speed-up releasing blocks on commit") CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 3.10 Signed-off-by: Baokun Li libaokun1@huawei.com --- fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 13 ++++++------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c index a95fa6e2b0f9..2fbee0f0f5c3 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c @@ -1892,11 +1892,6 @@ static void mb_free_blocks(struct inode *inode, struct ext4_buddy *e4b, mb_check_buddy(e4b); mb_free_blocks_double(inode, e4b, first, count);
- this_cpu_inc(discard_pa_seq); - e4b->bd_info->bb_free += count; - if (first < e4b->bd_info->bb_first_free) - e4b->bd_info->bb_first_free = first; - /* access memory sequentially: check left neighbour, * clear range and then check right neighbour */ @@ -1922,9 +1917,14 @@ static void mb_free_blocks(struct inode *inode, struct ext4_buddy *e4b, sb, e4b->bd_group, EXT4_GROUP_INFO_BBITMAP_CORRUPT); } - goto done; + return; }
+ this_cpu_inc(discard_pa_seq); + e4b->bd_info->bb_free += count; + if (first < e4b->bd_info->bb_first_free) + e4b->bd_info->bb_first_free = first; + /* let's maintain fragments counter */ if (left_is_free && right_is_free) e4b->bd_info->bb_fragments--; @@ -1949,7 +1949,6 @@ static void mb_free_blocks(struct inode *inode, struct ext4_buddy *e4b, if (first <= last) mb_buddy_mark_free(e4b, first >> 1, last >> 1);
-done: mb_set_largest_free_order(sb, e4b->bd_info); mb_update_avg_fragment_size(sb, e4b->bd_info); mb_check_buddy(e4b);