lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-06-01 18:53    [W:0.109 / U:0.636 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site