lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: reiserfs locking (v2)
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 10:43:23AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 10:24:42AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > Gyah... For the 1001st time: readdir() is far from being the only thing that
> > nests mmap_sem inside i_mutex. In particular, write() does the same thing.
> >
> > So yes, it *is* a real deadlock, TYVM, with no directories involved. Open the
> > same file twice, mmap one fd, close it, then have munmap() hitting i_mutex
> > in reiserfs_file_release() race with write() through another fd.
> >
> > Incidentally, reiserfs_file_release() checks in the fastpath look completely
> > bogus. Checking i_count? What the hell is that one about? And no, these
> > checks won't stop open() coming between them and grabbing i_mutex, so they
> > couldn't prevent the deadlock in question anyway.
>
> ... and unfortunately it's been that way since the the initial merge in 2.4.early.
> FWIW, it seems that i_count check was a misguided attempt to check that no other
> opened struct file are there, but it's
> a) wrong, since way, _way_ back - open() affects d_count, not i_count
> b) wrong even with such modification (consider hardlinks)
> c) wrong for even more reasons since forever - i_count and d_count could
> be bumped by many things at any time
> d) hopelessly racy anyway, since another open() could very well have
> happened just as we'd finished these checks.

OK... See 22093b8f3d387f77 in vfs-2.6.git for-next (should propagate to
git.kernel.org shortly). That ought to deal with this crap, assuming I hadn't
fucked up somewhere...


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-04 11:17    [W:0.054 / U:5.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site