Re: BUG in writeback_inodes()?

[Chris Mason]

On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 12:01, Kirill Korotaev wrote:

> The problem with it is that writeback_inodes() supposes that if 
> __put_super() returns 0 then no super block was deleted from the list 
> and we can safely traverse sb list further.
> 
> But as it is obvious from the deactivate_super() it's not actually true. 
> because at point Y we delete super block from the list and drop the 
> lock. We do __put_super() very much later... So we can find sb with 
> poisoned sb->s_list at point X and we won't be the last sb reference 
> holders. The last reference will be dropped in point Z.
> 
> So in case of the following sequence of execution Y -> X -> Z we'll get 
> an oops after point X in writeback_inodes().
> 
> Am I correct with it?

Hmmm, sure looks that way.  Seems like it should be enough to switch to
list_del_init in deactivate_super, and then check for
list_empty(sb->s_list) in writeback_inodes.

-chris


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/