Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: BUG in writeback_inodes()? | From | Chris Mason <> | Date | Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:35:11 -0400 |
| |
On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 12:01, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> 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?
Hmmm, sure looks that way. Seems like it should be enough to switch to list_del_init in deactivate_super, and then check for list_empty(sb->s_list) in writeback_inodes.
-chris
- 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/
| |