Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:54:09 +0000 (GMT) | From | Hugh Dickins <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] umount versus iprune |
| |
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Andrew Morton wrote: > Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote: > > > > When prune_icache coincides with unmounting, invalidate_inodes notices > > the inode it's working on as busy but doesn't wait: Self-destruct in 5 > > seconds message, and later iput oopses on freed super_block. > > Is 2.4 affected?
Good question.
I had thought obviously not, 2.4 prune_icache doesn't __iget and drop inode_lock as 2.5 does (while invalidating buffers and pages). Looks like 2.4 leaves that work to the subsequent dispose_list's truncate_inode_pages.
But that raises the doubt: maybe 2.4 won't get any Self-destruct message, but when prune_icache calls dispose_list calls clear_inode and destroy_inode, there could be a reference to freed super_block?
Perhaps there's some other reason why not, I'll check it out more carefully later.
Hugh
- 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/
| |