Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Jun 2007 22:43:39 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF |
| |
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:17:51 -0500 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:37:49 -0500 > > Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> wrote: > > >> going for the inode_lock twice? > >> > > > > lockdep should catch that. > > > > hey that's a good idea...! *sigh* sometimes I worry about myself... but > hey at least I got it right. :) > > ============================================= > [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] > 2.6.22-rc3 #8 > --------------------------------------------- > lt-fsstress/3285 is trying to acquire lock: > (inode_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff802b0de9>] __mark_inode_dirty+0xe2/0x16c > > but task is already holding lock: > (inode_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80316cc9>] > _atomic_dec_and_lock+0x39/0x58 > > other info that might help us debug this: > 3 locks held by lt-fsstress/3285: > #0: (&inode->i_mutex/1){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8029f262>] > do_rmdir+0x7c/0xe3 > #1: (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80462809>] > mutex_lock+0x22/0x24 > #2: (inode_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80316cc9>] > _atomic_dec_and_lock+0x39/0x58 > > stack backtrace: > > Call Trace: > [<ffffffff8024e1fc>] __lock_acquire+0x155/0xbaa > [<ffffffff802b0de9>] __mark_inode_dirty+0xe2/0x16c > [<ffffffff8024eccc>] lock_acquire+0x7b/0x9f > [<ffffffff802b0de9>] __mark_inode_dirty+0xe2/0x16c > [<ffffffff80463bc9>] _spin_lock+0x1e/0x28 > [<ffffffff802b0de9>] __mark_inode_dirty+0xe2/0x16c > [<ffffffff882dc7cc>] :udf:udf_write_aext+0x101/0x11b > [<ffffffff882e5992>] :udf:extent_trunc+0xd6/0x123 > [<ffffffff882e5ab9>] :udf:udf_truncate_tail_extent+0xda/0x171 > [<ffffffff882dfc5e>] :udf:udf_drop_inode+0x26/0x35 > [<ffffffff802a726d>] iput+0x74/0x76 > [<ffffffff802a4e9b>] dentry_iput+0xa0/0xb8 > [<ffffffff802a612a>] prune_dcache+0xa2/0x174 > [<ffffffff802a4f3c>] d_kill+0x21/0x43 > [<ffffffff802a5eef>] prune_one_dentry+0x3a/0xef > [<ffffffff802a6175>] prune_dcache+0xed/0x174 > [<ffffffff802a6253>] shrink_dcache_parent+0x21/0x10e > [<ffffffff8029becd>] dentry_unhash+0x26/0x84 > [<ffffffff8029d23c>] vfs_rmdir+0x88/0x117 > [<ffffffff8029f287>] do_rmdir+0xa1/0xe3 > [<ffffffff8020cf4b>] syscall_trace_enter+0x8d/0x8f > [<ffffffff8029f300>] sys_rmdir+0x11/0x13 > [<ffffffff80209da5>] tracesys+0xdc/0xe1 >
Well. Documentation/filesystems/Locking says
drop_inode: no !!!inode_lock!!!
That patch is DOA, methinks.
- 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/
| |