lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [ 64/66] GFS2: Test bufdata with buffer locked and gfs2_log_lock held
From
Date
Hi,

On Sun, 2012-11-25 at 14:11 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 20:11 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 3.6-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> > From: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@redhat.com>
> >
> > commit 96e5d1d3adf56f1c7eeb07258f6a1a0a7ae9c489 upstream.
> >
> > In gfs2_trans_add_bh(), gfs2 was testing if a there was a bd attached to the
> > buffer without having the gfs2_log_lock held. It was then assuming it would
> > stay attached for the rest of the function. However, without either the log
> > lock being held of the buffer locked, __gfs2_ail_flush() could detach bd at any
> > time. This patch moves the locking before the test. If there isn't a bd
> > already attached, gfs2 can safely allocate one and attach it before locking.
> > There is no way that the newly allocated bd could be on the ail list,
> > and thus no way for __gfs2_ail_flush() to detach it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> [...]
>
> Is this needed for any earlier versions? It looks applicable to 3.2
> (with minor changes).
>
> Ben.
>

Potentially yes, although I don't think we've had any reports from that
far back,

Steve.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-26 16:41    [W:1.355 / U:0.676 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site