Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:52:32 +0300 | From | Mika Penttilä <> | Subject | Re: possible race condition in vfs code |
| |
I mean busy inodes after umount doing bogus write_inode_now. Busy inodes don't pin the superblock (vfsmnt does but it's gone, otherwise we wouldn't be in kill_sb in the first place).
Dave Peterson's fix solves the double free issue, but does potentially introduce another busy inode after sb has gone.
--Mika
viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 01:51:42AM +0300, Mika Penttilä wrote: > > >>That piece of code looks wrong in other ways also..if we have unmounted >>an active fs (which shouldn't be done but happens!) we shouldn't be at >>least writing back to it anything! The !sb test isn't useful (we never >>clear it in live inodes) and MS_ACTIVE handling is racy as hell wrt >>umount... >> >> > >Would you mind actually _reading_ kill_super() and stuff called by it? >- >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/ > > >
- 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |