lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 30 Apr 2003 09:52:32 +0300
FromMika_Penttilä <>
SubjectRe: possible race condition in vfs code
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