From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755145AbZDOTcS (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:32:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753179AbZDOTcC (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:32:02 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:45287 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752690AbZDOTcA (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:32:00 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix inconsistent lock state in inotify From: Eric Paris To: Andrew Morton Cc: Luca Tettamanti , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, john@johnmccutchan.com, rlove@rlove.org In-Reply-To: <20090415122532.0a0c5f24.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20090410192533.GA24345@dreamland.darkstar.lan> <20090414161329.094b977c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <68676e00904150459q6cc34f9fjb9475937a4e73c71@mail.gmail.com> <20090415122532.0a0c5f24.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:31:35 -0400 Message-Id: <1239823895.2562.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 12:25 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:59:29 +0200 > Luca Tettamanti wrote: > > > >> +++ b/fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c > > >> @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static struct inotify_kernel_event * kernel_event(s32 wd, u32 mask, u32 cookie, > > >> rem = 0; > > >> } > > >> > > >> - kevent->name = kmalloc(len + rem, GFP_KERNEL); > > >> + kevent->name = kmalloc(len + rem, GFP_NOFS); > > >> if (unlikely(!kevent->name)) { > > >> kmem_cache_free(event_cachep, kevent); > > >> return NULL; > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > This is in fact a false positive and we plan to fix it via lockdep > > > annotation. > > > > Well, I trust you on the "false positive", but a few line before there this: > > > > kevent = kmem_cache_alloc(event_cachep, GFP_NOFS); > > > > so can kmem_cache_alloc also use GFP_KERNEL? > > Yes, it looks that way. > > umm, I think I'll merge your original patch as a reminder-to-self. > If the problem doesn't get fixed in a better way for 2.6.30 then I > might end up going with the GFP_NOFS approach. > > But it's bad to weaken the memory allocation mode just to plug a lockdep > warning. I swear, I'm fighting with my machines trying to get one to work so I can test my lockdep fix today (and found a separate oddity/bug in the process) -Eric