Re: [RFC][PATCH] Fix hang in posix_locks_deadlock()

[George G. Davis]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 02:51:57PM -0400, George G. Davis wrote:
> ---
> Not sure if this is the correct fix but it does resolve the hangs we're
> observing in posix_locks_deadlock().

Please disregard the previous patch, it's not quite right - causes occasional
segfaults and clearly did not retain the posix_same_owner() checks implemented
in the original code.  Here's a new version which I believe retains the
intent of the original code:

diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 7f9a3ea..e012b27 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -702,14 +702,12 @@ static int posix_locks_deadlock(struct file_lock *caller_fl,
 {
 	struct file_lock *fl;
 
-next_task:
 	if (posix_same_owner(caller_fl, block_fl))
 		return 1;
 	list_for_each_entry(fl, &blocked_list, fl_link) {
 		if (posix_same_owner(fl, block_fl)) {
-			fl = fl->fl_next;
-			block_fl = fl;
-			goto next_task;
+			if (posix_same_owner(caller_fl, fl))
+				return 1;
 		}
 	}
 	return 0;


I'm not sure about those "fl = fl->fl_next; block_fl = fl;" statements,
first, the order of those statements seems reversed to me.  Otherwise,
I think the intent was to advance the "fl" for loop variable to the next
entry in the list but it doesn't work out that way at all - the for
loop restarts from the beginning - this is where we get into an
infinite loop condition.  Whether the test case I posted before is
valid or not, I reckon it shouldn't be possible for non-root Joe user
to contrive a test case which can hang the system as we're observing
with that test case.  The above patch fixes the hang.

Comments greatly appreciated...

-- 
Regards,
George
-
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/