Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Jun 2007 20:49:26 +0400 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF |
| |
[Eric Sandeen - Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:46:15PM -0500] | Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: | | >Eric, could you please try the following: | > | >1) declare the spinlock in the top of inode.c as | > | > DEFINE_SPINLOCK(udf_drop_lock); | > | >2) replace in udf_drop_inode() | > | > kernel_lock -> spin_lock(&udf_drop_lock); | > kernel_unlock -> spin_unlock(&udf_drop_lock); | > | >I'm not sure if it help but you may try ;) | > | > Cyrill | > | | I'm sure it'll avoid the deadlock but.... | | Any sense of what the BKL is actually trying to protect in this case? | | Is it really only trying to prevent concurrent prealloc-discarders, or | is there more? | | -Eric |
Hi Eric, it seems BKL only trying to protect from concurrent discard_prealloc. Moreover, a lot of UDF code does call iput with BKL held, so the only solution I see is to add spinlocks to udf_drop_inode... I'm making patch soon. Any comments?
Cyrill
- 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/
| |