[PATCH mm] epoll: lock ep->mtx in ep_free to silence lockdep

[Eric Wong]

Technically we do not need to hold ep->mtx during ep_free since we are
certain there are no other users of ep at that point.  However, lockdep
complains with a "suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!" message;
so lock the mutex before ep_remove to silence the warning.

Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <normalperson@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Arve HjÃnnevÃg <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>,
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
---
  I considered using lockdep_off()/lockdep_on(), but I figure that may
  hide other bugs...

 fs/eventpoll.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/eventpoll.c b/fs/eventpoll.c
index 633e69f..d71b754 100644
--- a/fs/eventpoll.c
+++ b/fs/eventpoll.c
@@ -745,11 +745,15 @@ static void ep_free(struct eventpoll *ep)
 	 * point we are sure no poll callbacks will be lingering around, and also by
 	 * holding "epmutex" we can be sure that no file cleanup code will hit
 	 * us during this operation. So we can avoid the lock on "ep->lock".
+	 * We do not need to lock ep->mtx, either, we only do it to prevent
+	 * a lockdep warning.
 	 */
+	mutex_lock(&ep->mtx);
 	while ((rbp = rb_first(&ep->rbr)) != NULL) {
 		epi = rb_entry(rbp, struct epitem, rbn);
 		ep_remove(ep, epi);
 	}
+	mutex_unlock(&ep->mtx);
 
 	mutex_unlock(&epmutex);
 	mutex_destroy(&ep->mtx);
-- 
Eric Wong
--
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/