From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luis Henriques Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] fsnotify: change locking order Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:05:45 +0000 Message-ID: <87aa3bgkja.fsf@camandro.org> References: <1308065393-29463-1-git-send-email-LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de> <4E370EBE.3050100@redhat.com> <20110811231331.GB5735@uranus.sol> <87fwd3glak.fsf@camandro.org> <1332269899.3178.3.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Lino Sanfilippo , viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Paris Return-path: Received: from balrog.mythic-beasts.com ([93.93.130.6]:60501 "EHLO balrog.mythic-beasts.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756355Ab2CTTcr (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:32:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1332269899.3178.3.camel@localhost> (Eric Paris's message of "Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:58:19 -0400") Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Eric Paris writes: > I'm pretty sure it stalled on me. I pushed his work to my tree months > and months ago and never sent it along to Linus. I'll try to make sure > to do that this window. Great, thanks a lot. -- Luis > -Eric > > On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 18:49 +0000, Luis Henriques wrote: >> Hi Lino, >> >> Lino Sanfilippo writes: >> >> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 04:38:22PM -0400, Eric Paris wrote: >> ... >> >> >> >> Looks at aweful lot like the problem from: >> >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg46101.html >> >> >> > >> > I tried to reproduce this bug with your test program, but without success. >> > However, if I understand correctly, this occurs since we dont hold any locks when >> > we call iput() in mark_destroy(), right? >> > With the patches you tested, iput() is also not called within any lock, since the >> > groups mark_mutex is released temporarily before iput() is called. This is, since >> > the original codes behaviour is similar. >> > However since we now have a mutex as the biggest lock, we can do what you >> > suggested (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg46107.html) and >> > call iput() with the mutex held to avoid the race. >> > The patch below implements this. It uses nested locking to avoid deadlock in case >> > we do the final iput() on an inode which still holds marks and thus would take >> > the mutex again when calling fsnotify_inode_delete() in destroy_inode(). >> >> I know it's been a while since you posted this series, but I was >> wondering if there has been any progress. Is there anyone working on >> this, or is it stalled? >> >> Cheers, >> -- >> Luis > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html