lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] cgroup: fix reverse unlock sequence in cgroup_get_sb
* Zefan Li <lizf.kernel@gmail.com> [2009-07-21 19:38:03]:

> 2009/7/21, Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>:
> >
> > * Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@redhat.com> [2009-07-21 18:25:26]:
> >
> > > In cgroup_get_sb, the lock sequence is:
> > > mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
> > > mutex_lock(&cgroup->mutex);
> > > so the last unlock sequence should be:
> > > mutex_unlock(&cgroup->mutex);
> > > mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/cgroup.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
> > > index 3737a68..11ef162 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
> > > @@ -1140,8 +1140,8 @@ static int cgroup_get_sb(struct file_system_type
> > *fs_type,
> > > BUG_ON(root->number_of_cgroups != 1);
> > >
> > > cgroup_populate_dir(root_cgrp);
> > > - mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
> > > mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
> > > + mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > Seems reasonable to me. You might also want to mention that elsewhere
> > the sequence is unlock cgroup_mutex followed by inode->i_mutex.
> >
> > Acked-by: Balbir Singh balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
>
>
> No, the unlock order is irrelevant. It's the lock order that matters. So
> this patch
> fixes nothing.
>
> Xiaotian, you didn't run into deadlock, did you?
>


Li, Consider the following


lock(A)
lock(B)
unlock(A)
unlock(B)

Tomorrow if a unsuspecting programmer does this

lock(A)
lock(B)
unlock(A)

code block

unlock(B)


What protects code block? lock B? Is that the intention?

--
Balbir


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-07-21 14:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans