From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:57767 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751322Ab1F3VI6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:08:58 -0400 Received: from [192.168.100.195] (firewall.candelatech.com [70.89.124.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns3.lanforge.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p5UL8vnH001059 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:08:57 -0700 Message-ID: <4E0CE5E9.2090401@candelatech.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:08:57 -0700 From: Ben Greear To: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Potential locking issue in sunrpc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 This method in sched.c says we should have a lock for ASYNC /* * Make an RPC task runnable. * * Note: If the task is ASYNC, this must be called with * the spinlock held to protect the wait queue operation. */ static void rpc_make_runnable(struct rpc_task *task) However, I don't think the lock is being taken for the call path starting with rpcb_call_async in rpcb_clnt.c: rpcb_call_async rpc_run_task rpc_execute rpc_make_runnable Is the comment on the make_runnable method wrong, or are we missing locking? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com