From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756929AbXFBGf0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jun 2007 02:35:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754307AbXFBGfR (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jun 2007 02:35:17 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.175]:41828 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754113AbXFBGfP (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jun 2007 02:35:15 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=kwTvfRp4kUfyaX07eQuCGbZaUeP/lUVk1EesyWGKrELcotPXm9DUmOaN0PCm1UvRE9bC41PKokrhe07UPE8pP+kFut99wiBO9jGYFWGN1/YwxSi7m1k0KEpLiVSytJRJghU5s1hN9XOMjoRynMRFG1JaOxq38+WXgtXZ9CajznI= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:34:03 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Andrew Morton Cc: Eric Sandeen , Jan Kara , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Cyrill Gorcunov Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF Message-ID: <20070602063403.GA8387@cvg> References: <20070524165935.GB19709@duck.suse.cz> <20070524170554.GC19709@duck.suse.cz> <20070524203653.GA7693@duck.suse.cz> <465DF0B4.2050203@sandeen.net> <20070601211036.GA23975@duck.suse.cz> <46609FBD.5040407@sandeen.net> <20070601154834.53558d1b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4660FD7F.4090302@sandeen.net> <20070601224339.c803e04e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070601224339.c803e04e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Andrew Morton - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:43:39PM -0700] | On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:17:51 -0500 Eric Sandeen wrote: | | > Andrew Morton wrote: | > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:37:49 -0500 | > > Eric Sandeen wrote: | > | > >> going for the inode_lock twice? | > >> | > > | > > lockdep should catch that. | > > | > | > hey that's a good idea...! *sigh* sometimes I worry about myself... but | > hey at least I got it right. :) | > | > ============================================= | > [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] | > 2.6.22-rc3 #8 | > --------------------------------------------- | > lt-fsstress/3285 is trying to acquire lock: | > (inode_lock){--..}, at: [] __mark_inode_dirty+0xe2/0x16c | > | > but task is already holding lock: | > (inode_lock){--..}, at: [] | > _atomic_dec_and_lock+0x39/0x58 | > | > other info that might help us debug this: | > 3 locks held by lt-fsstress/3285: | > #0: (&inode->i_mutex/1){--..}, at: [] | > do_rmdir+0x7c/0xe3 | > #1: (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [] | > mutex_lock+0x22/0x24 | > #2: (inode_lock){--..}, at: [] | > _atomic_dec_and_lock+0x39/0x58 | > | > stack backtrace: | > | > Call Trace: | > [] __lock_acquire+0x155/0xbaa | > [] __mark_inode_dirty+0xe2/0x16c | > [] lock_acquire+0x7b/0x9f | > [] __mark_inode_dirty+0xe2/0x16c | > [] _spin_lock+0x1e/0x28 | > [] __mark_inode_dirty+0xe2/0x16c | > [] :udf:udf_write_aext+0x101/0x11b | > [] :udf:extent_trunc+0xd6/0x123 | > [] :udf:udf_truncate_tail_extent+0xda/0x171 | > [] :udf:udf_drop_inode+0x26/0x35 | > [] iput+0x74/0x76 | > [] dentry_iput+0xa0/0xb8 | > [] prune_dcache+0xa2/0x174 | > [] d_kill+0x21/0x43 | > [] prune_one_dentry+0x3a/0xef | > [] prune_dcache+0xed/0x174 | > [] shrink_dcache_parent+0x21/0x10e | > [] dentry_unhash+0x26/0x84 | > [] vfs_rmdir+0x88/0x117 | > [] do_rmdir+0xa1/0xe3 | > [] syscall_trace_enter+0x8d/0x8f | > [] sys_rmdir+0x11/0x13 | > [] tracesys+0xdc/0xe1 | > | | Well. Documentation/filesystems/Locking says | | drop_inode: no !!!inode_lock!!! | | That patch is DOA, methinks. | Andrew, what does it mean - "DOA"? Dead on arrival? Cyrill