Re: reiserfs locking (v2)

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 10:15:23AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 10:43:23AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 10:24:42AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > 
> > > Gyah...  For the 1001st time: readdir() is far from being the only thing that
> > > nests mmap_sem inside i_mutex.  In particular, write() does the same thing.
> > > 
> > > So yes, it *is* a real deadlock, TYVM, with no directories involved.  Open the
> > > same file twice, mmap one fd, close it, then have munmap() hitting i_mutex
> > > in reiserfs_file_release() race with write() through another fd.
> > > 
> > > Incidentally, reiserfs_file_release() checks in the fastpath look completely
> > > bogus.  Checking i_count?  What the hell is that one about?  And no, these
> > > checks won't stop open() coming between them and grabbing i_mutex, so they
> > > couldn't prevent the deadlock in question anyway.
> > 
> > ... and unfortunately it's been that way since the the initial merge in 2.4.early.
> > FWIW, it seems that i_count check was a misguided attempt to check that no other
> > opened struct file are there, but it's
> > 	a) wrong, since way, _way_ back - open() affects d_count, not i_count
> > 	b) wrong even with such modification (consider hardlinks)
> > 	c) wrong for even more reasons since forever - i_count and d_count could
> > be bumped by many things at any time
> > 	d) hopelessly racy anyway, since another open() could very well have
> > happened just as we'd finished these checks.
> 
> OK...  See 22093b8f3d387f77 in vfs-2.6.git for-next (should propagate to
> git.kernel.org shortly).  That ought to deal with this crap, assuming I hadn't
> fucked up somewhere...


Looks good. Thanks for fixing this!

--
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/