commit
2f1f465ae6da244099af55c066e5355abd8ff620 upstream.
If the clone root was not readonly or the dead flag was set on it, we were
leaving without decrementing the root's send_progress counter (and before
we just incremented it). If a concurrent snapshot deletion was in progress
and ended up being aborted, it would be impossible to later attempt to
delete again the snapshot, since the root's send_in_progress counter could
never go back to 0.
We were also setting clone_sources_to_rollback to i + 1 too early - if we
bailed out because the clone root we got is not readonly or flagged as dead
we ended up later derreferencing a null pointer because we didn't assign
the clone root to sctx->clone_roots[i].root:
for (i = 0; sctx && i < clone_sources_to_rollback; i++)
btrfs_root_dec_send_in_progress(
sctx->clone_roots[i].root);
So just don't increment the send_in_progress counter if the root is readonly
or flagged as dead.
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
ret = PTR_ERR(clone_root);
goto out;
}
- clone_sources_to_rollback = i + 1;
spin_lock(&clone_root->root_item_lock);
- clone_root->send_in_progress++;
if (!btrfs_root_readonly(clone_root) ||
btrfs_root_dead(clone_root)) {
spin_unlock(&clone_root->root_item_lock);
ret = -EPERM;
goto out;
}
+ clone_root->send_in_progress++;
spin_unlock(&clone_root->root_item_lock);
srcu_read_unlock(&fs_info->subvol_srcu, index);
sctx->clone_roots[i].root = clone_root;
+ clone_sources_to_rollback = i + 1;
}
vfree(clone_sources_tmp);
clone_sources_tmp = NULL;