![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 22:11:41 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 12:35:43 +0800 > "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > pci_walk_bus has a race with pci_destroy_dev. When cb is called > > in pci_walk_bus, pci_destroy_dev might unlink the dev pointed by next. > > Later on in the next loop, pointer next becomes NULL and cause > > kernel panic. > > > > Below patch against 2.6.17-rc4 fixes it by changing pci_bus_lock (spin_lock) > > to pci_bus_sem (rw_semaphore). > > How does s/spinlock/rwsem/ fix a race?? oic. "and hold the lock across the callback". Is the ranking of pci_bus_sem and dev->dev.sem correct+consistent? It looks OK. It might be worth making a not that the callback function cannot call any PCI layer function which takes pci_bus_sem - that'll casue a recursive down_read(), which is a nasty source of rare deadlocks. - 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: 2006-06-02 05:22 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||