lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Race inotify_rm_watch vs umount
From
Date
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 20:20 +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking the race inotify_rm_watch() vs umount(). This race become the
> cause of Oops. You can see the oops at
>
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22602
>
> So, what race?

Ok, I see what you are saying, I'll see what I can do. I'm a little
scared to call something like iput() under a lock though. I might be
able to make the bigest lock a mutex and fix this....

I'll add this to my test suite.

-Eric
>
> umount inotify_rm_watch
> ... fsnotify_destroy_mark()
> fsnotify_destroy_inode_mark()
> /* removed from i_fsnotify_marks */
> generic_shutdown_super()
> fsnotify_unmount_inodes()
> put_super()
> iput()
> iput_final()
> /* this is after put_super() */
>
> Like above, inotify doesn't guarantee to call final iput() before
> put_super(). With this violation, FS driver can oops.
>
> Well, so, what are requested for inotify? We can't simply take
> sb->s_umount in inotify_rm_watch()?
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-10 15:49    [W:0.111 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site