Re: [PATCH] loop: queue_lock NULL pointer derefence inblk_throtl_exit (v2)

[Vivek Goyal]

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 05:18:22PM +0200, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (01/20/11 09:35), Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Hi Sergey,
> >
> 
> Hi Vivek,
> 
> > Can we expand a little bit on comment that why do we need to have
> > q->queue_lock initialized here now. Basically in the past nobody tried
> > to take q->queue_lock in blk_cleanup_queue() path hence things just
> > worked. Now blk throttling code is new and it takes q->queue_lock hence we
> > run into issues. This could be true for some other future code too.
> > 
> > Secondly currently blk throttle code seems to be the only user dependent
> > on this lock initialization. So it might make sense to move this code
> > closer to the actual call and blk_release_queue() might be even better
> > place to do it atleast for now.
> > 
> 
> I'm afraid it's not safe to move NULL-check-and-fix out from blk_cleanup_queue, 
> since we're performing elevator_exit(q->elevator) call, which may depend on 
> q->queue_lock. For example, (./cfq-iosched.c: .elevator_exit_fn = cfq_exit_queue)
> cfq_exit_queue uses q->queue_lock.

ok, actually cfq_exit_queue() will be called only if elevator has been
initilialzed and if elevator has been initialialized that means
q->queue_lock also has been initilalized so that should not be a problem.

I am not very particular about this thing. So I will leave it to you.

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/