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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans