From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] vfs: umount_begin BKL pushdown v2
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:15:36 +0100
Message-ID: <20090424071536.GF8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20090423191934.GW1926@parisc-linux.org> <1240556813-8739-1-git-send-email-abogani@texware.it> <1240556813-8739-2-git-send-email-abogani@texware.it> <20090424071312.GE8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	LFSDEV <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
To: Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@texware.it>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:46806 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753843AbZDXHPi (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 24 Apr 2009 03:15:38 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090424071312.GE8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 08:13:12AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 09:06:53AM +0200, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote:
> >  static void cifs_umount_begin(struct super_block *sb)
> >  {
> > -	struct cifs_sb_info *cifs_sb = CIFS_SB(sb);
> > +	struct cifs_sb_info *cifs_sb;
> >  	struct cifsTconInfo *tcon;
> >  
> > -	if (cifs_sb == NULL)
> > +	lock_kernel();
> > +	cifs_sb = CIFS_SB(sb);
> > +
> > +	if (cifs_sb == NULL) {
> > +		unlock_kernel();
> >  		return;
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	tcon = cifs_sb->tcon;
> > -	if (tcon == NULL)
> > +	if (tcon == NULL) {
> > +		unlock_kernel();
> >  		return;
> > +	}
> 
> AFAICS, both CIFS_SB(sb) and ->tcon are assign-once, so lock_kernel() should
> really go here (if it can't be removed completely, of course, but that's up
> to CIFS folks).  Applied with such modification.

PS: I suspect that checks for NULL are actually "what if kernel memory got
corrupted", but I'm too lazy to verify that at the moment; again, up to
CIFS folks.