lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
    On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 18:06:19 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:

    > [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:06:45AM -0700]
    > | On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:59:23 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
    > |
    > | > [Andrew Morton - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:54:22PM -0700]
    > | > | On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:34:03 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
    > | > |
    > | > | > | That patch is DOA, methinks.
    > | > | > |
    > | > | >
    > | > | > Andrew, what does it mean - "DOA"? Dead on arrival?
    > | > |
    > | > | yes - I dropped it.
    > | > |
    > | >
    > | > But that could lead to rejection of my code-style-conversion patch...
    > | > Should I remake them?
    > |
    > | Actually I've rebuilt those patches four times already. People keep
    > | changing stuff.
    > |
    > | > Actually Jan was right, the current state of UDF (without his patches)
    > | > could lead to lost blocks and his patch must be just fixed I think.
    > |
    > | sure.
    > |
    >
    > Andrew, you know I've been trying to reproduce Eric's lockup case almost
    > two hour and still can't reach it. All manupulation I've done to UDF didn't
    > lead to lockup. Moreover, I've added debug print for UDF module and here is
    > the results (for single drop_inode call):
    >
    > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_drop_inode:105 --> udf_drop_inode --> inode->i_count: 0
    > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_drop_inode:107 udf_drop_inode -> discard_prealloc
    > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_discard_prealloc:136 udf_discard_prealloc
    > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_truncate_tail_extent:84 udf_truncate_tail_extent
    > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_truncate_extents:194 udf_truncate_extents -->
    > [12063.897000] UDF: extent_trunc:38 --->
    > [12063.897000] UDF: extent_trunc:54 call to udf_write_aext
    > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_write_aext:1843 udf_write_aext
    > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_write_aext:1846 dont has epos->bh
    > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_write_aext:1866 ICBTAG_FLAG_AD_LONG
    > ---> [12063.897000] UDF: udf_write_aext:1893 ---> gotcha ---> call mark_inode_dirty
    > ---> [12063.897000] UDF: extent_trunc:59 --> gotcha --> call mark_inode_dirty
    > [12063.897000] UDF: extent_trunc:68 <---
    > ---> [12063.897000] UDF: udf_truncate_extents:282 call mark_inode_dirty
    > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_truncate_extents:330 udf_truncate_extents <--
    > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_drop_inode:115 <-- udf_drop_inode <--
    >
    > As you may see, mark_inode_dirty is called several time and no locking happened.
    > Maybe I should use some test utils?
    >

    Silly question: you _do_ have CONFIG_SMP=y, yes?

    And did you enable lockdep?
    -
    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: 2007-06-02 19:35    [W:0.024 / U:60.420 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site