Re: [PATCH] radix_tree_tag_get() is not as safe as the docs make out

[David Howells]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Looks like a reasonable patch, but the one thing you didn't say is whether 
> there is any code that relies on the incorrectly documented behavior?

Sorry, yes.  I've made an assumption in FS-Cache that I can rely on the result
of radix_tree_tag_get() simply by wrapping it in an rcu_read_lock()'d section.
This has proven not to be so, since the BUG_ON() at line 602 in
lib/radix-tree.c triggered.

I was protecting set/clear/delete from each other, but not protecting get from
set/clear/delete.

> How did you find this? Do we need to fix actual code too? The only user 
> seems to be your fscache/page.c thing, and I'm not seeing any locking 
> except for the rcu locking that is apparently not sufficient.

As mentioned above, someone reported a bug in fscache that led me to this:

	https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-cachefs/2010-April/msg00013.html

I may need to fix fscache, but I wanted to see if anyone would suggest an
alternate patch that would continue to let me make a test without having to
grab the spinlock first.

I'll update the patch to reflect this, whatever the final patch ends up being.

David
--
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/