lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectBUG in writeback_inodes()?
Hello All,

It looks like there is a small race bug in writeback_inodes()
Have a look at this 2 call chains:

writeback_inodes()
{
....
sb->s_count++;
spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
....
spin_lock(&sb_lock);
if (__put_super(sb)) <<< X
goto restart;
}
}

deactivate_super()
{
fs->kill_sb(s);
kill_block_super(sb)
generic_shutdown_super(sb)
spin_lock(&sb_lock);
list_del(&sb->s_list); <<< Y
spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
....
put_super(s);
spin_lock(&sb_lock);
__put_super(sb); <<< Z
spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
}

The problem with it is that writeback_inodes() supposes that if
__put_super() returns 0 then no super block was deleted from the list
and we can safely traverse sb list further.

But as it is obvious from the deactivate_super() it's not actually true.
because at point Y we delete super block from the list and drop the
lock. We do __put_super() very much later... So we can find sb with
poisoned sb->s_list at point X and we won't be the last sb reference
holders. The last reference will be dropped in point Z.

So in case of the following sequence of execution Y -> X -> Z we'll get
an oops after point X in writeback_inodes().

Am I correct with it?

Kirill

-
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 14:06    [W:0.025 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site