Re: loop: fix deadlock when sysfs and LOOP_CLR_FD race against each other

[Jens Axboe]

On 2011-07-31 22:42, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 22:20, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 2011-07-30 21:19, Kay Sievers wrote:
>>> Instead of taking the lo_ctl_mutex from sysfs code, take the inner
>>> lo->lo_lock, to protect the access to the backing_file data.
>>>
>>> Thanks to Tejun for help debugging and finding a solution.
>>
>> Looks good, looks like something that should have a stable tag as well?
> 
> Right, I think it makes sense to have that in -stable.
> 
> It's pretty hard to trigger, I had multiple threads running, crawling
> /sys and adding/binding/unbinding/removing 1000s of loop devices, and
> it takes several minutes sometimes until its hit. So I only tested it
> on top of the 3 loop-control patches, but the issue should exist in
> the current code as well.

I applied those for 3.1 as well, but I'm thinking they probably should
have been queued up for 3.2 instead.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/