dect
/
linux-2.6
Archived
13
0
Fork 0
Code Releases Activity

Btrfs: fix regression in re-setting a large xattr 

Recently I changed the xattr stuff to unconditionally set the xattr first in
case the xattr didn't exist yet.  This has introduced a regression when setting
an xattr that already exists with a large value.  If we find the key we are
looking for split_leaf will assume that we're extending that item.  The problem
is the size we pass down to btrfs_search_slot includes the size of the item
already, so if we have the largest xattr we can possibly have plus the size of
the xattr item plus the xattr item that btrfs_search_slot we'd overflow the
leaf.  Thankfully this is not what we're doing, but split_leaf doesn't know this
so it just returns EOVERFLOW.  So in the xattr code we need to check and see if
we got back EOVERFLOW and treat it like EEXIST since that's really what
happened.  Thanks,

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
This commit is contained in:
Josef Bacik 2011-10-13 13:09:22 -04:00
parent e70bea5fe0
commit ed3ee9f44b
1 changed files with 11 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

11
fs/btrfs/xattr.c
View File

@ -127,6 +127,17 @@ static int do_setxattr(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
again:
ret = btrfs_insert_xattr_item(trans, root, path, btrfs_ino(inode),
name, name_len, value, size);
/*
* If we're setting an xattr to a new value but the new value is say
* exactly BTRFS_MAX_XATTR_SIZE, we could end up with EOVERFLOW getting
* back from split_leaf. This is because it thinks we'll be extending
* the existing item size, but we're asking for enough space to add the
* item itself. So if we get EOVERFLOW just set ret to EEXIST and let
* the rest of the function figure it out.
*/
if (ret == -EOVERFLOW)
ret = -EEXIST;
if (ret == -EEXIST) {
if (flags & XATTR_CREATE)
goto out;