![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
I mean busy inodes after umount doing bogus write_inode_now. Busy inodes don't pin the superblock (vfsmnt does but it's gone, otherwise we wouldn't be in kill_sb in the first place). Dave Peterson's fix solves the double free issue, but does potentially introduce another busy inode after sb has gone. --Mika viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote: >On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 01:51:42AM +0300, Mika Penttilä wrote: > > >>That piece of code looks wrong in other ways also..if we have unmounted >>an active fs (which shouldn't be done but happens!) we shouldn't be at >>least writing back to it anything! The !sb test isn't useful (we never >>clear it in live inodes) and MS_ACTIVE handling is racy as hell wrt >>umount... >> >> > >Would you mind actually _reading_ kill_super() and stuff called by it? >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:35 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||