Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 May 2007 16:46:28 -0500 | From | Eric Sandeen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF |
| |
Jan Kara wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu 24-05-07 19:05:54, Jan Kara wrote: >> Hello, >> >> attached is a patch that fixes possible leakage of free blocks / use of >> free blocks in UDF (which spilled nice assertion failures I've added in my >> first round of patches). More details in the changelog. Andrew, please apply. >> Both changes have survived some time of fsx and fsstress testing so they >> should be reasonably safe. > Sorry for replying to myself but this patch had a minor problem of > printing some bogus warnings when directories were deleted (I wonder why > fsstress didn't find it). Attached is a new version of the patch without > this problem.
Jan, something seems busted here. I'm getting lockups when testing udf on a single cpu with this last patch in place...
I think it's the BKL stumbling on itself.
for example...
static int udf_symlink(struct inode * dir, struct dentry * dentry, const char * symname) { ... lock_kernel(); ... out: unlock_kernel(); return err;
out_no_entry: inode_dec_link_count(inode); iput(inode); goto out; }
but iput goes iput->iput_final->drop_inode->udf_drop_inode->lock_kernel() again
looking for the right way around it but figured I'd ping you early :)
-Eric - 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/
| |