From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762346AbXFBS6b (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jun 2007 14:58:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757441AbXFBS6X (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jun 2007 14:58:23 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.174]:3702 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757641AbXFBS6X (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jun 2007 14:58:23 -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=ZqlmeCsrWhAYZ8gtttMr/qmx01Ehj2QU5NXbiUu5SQ6KzlYe66/ucru9ECQEUGHkk0bm9PwqxZjzXq+LjWu6ll07EqghZYEPIyEFjghtPTb82iugHolkctwy/MCNMEQ+h0+HFRtxs8SLkWwqUVX2beBFZyKZtWcfehZ90WxdXdQ= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 22:57:07 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Andrew Morton Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov , Eric Sandeen , Jan Kara , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF Message-ID: <20070602185707.GA8518@cvg> References: <46609FBD.5040407@sandeen.net> <20070601154834.53558d1b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4660FD7F.4090302@sandeen.net> <20070601224339.c803e04e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070602063403.GA8387@cvg> <20070601235422.fdc1f750.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070602065923.GB8387@cvg> <20070602000645.508ddf93.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070602140619.GA10303@cvg> <20070602103203.e39d25ed.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070602103203.e39d25ed.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 - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 10:32:03AM -0700] | On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 18:06:19 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: | | > [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:06:45AM -0700] | > | On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:59:23 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: | > | | > | > [Andrew Morton - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:54:22PM -0700] | > | > | On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:34:03 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: | > | > | | > | > | > | That patch is DOA, methinks. | > | > | > | | > | > | > | > | > | > Andrew, what does it mean - "DOA"? Dead on arrival? | > | > | | > | > | yes - I dropped it. | > | > | | > | > | > | > But that could lead to rejection of my code-style-conversion patch... | > | > Should I remake them? | > | | > | Actually I've rebuilt those patches four times already. People keep | > | changing stuff. | > | | > | > Actually Jan was right, the current state of UDF (without his patches) | > | > could lead to lost blocks and his patch must be just fixed I think. | > | | > | sure. | > | | > | > Andrew, you know I've been trying to reproduce Eric's lockup case almost | > two hour and still can't reach it. All manupulation I've done to UDF didn't | > lead to lockup. Moreover, I've added debug print for UDF module and here is | > the results (for single drop_inode call): | > | > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_drop_inode:105 --> udf_drop_inode --> inode->i_count: 0 | > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_drop_inode:107 udf_drop_inode -> discard_prealloc | > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_discard_prealloc:136 udf_discard_prealloc | > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_truncate_tail_extent:84 udf_truncate_tail_extent | > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_truncate_extents:194 udf_truncate_extents --> | > [12063.897000] UDF: extent_trunc:38 ---> | > [12063.897000] UDF: extent_trunc:54 call to udf_write_aext | > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_write_aext:1843 udf_write_aext | > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_write_aext:1846 dont has epos->bh | > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_write_aext:1866 ICBTAG_FLAG_AD_LONG | > ---> [12063.897000] UDF: udf_write_aext:1893 ---> gotcha ---> call mark_inode_dirty | > ---> [12063.897000] UDF: extent_trunc:59 --> gotcha --> call mark_inode_dirty | > [12063.897000] UDF: extent_trunc:68 <--- | > ---> [12063.897000] UDF: udf_truncate_extents:282 call mark_inode_dirty | > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_truncate_extents:330 udf_truncate_extents <-- | > [12063.897000] UDF: udf_drop_inode:115 <-- udf_drop_inode <-- | > | > As you may see, mark_inode_dirty is called several time and no locking happened. | > Maybe I should use some test utils? | > | | Silly question: you _do_ have CONFIG_SMP=y, yes? | Oh, no I don't :( So the problem is in kernel sync (as I thought)... damn... I have to rebuild my kernel... but hold on - my machine has only one CPU ;) | And did you enable lockdep? | Yes So the problem is 'cause of mark_inode_dirty may sleep? Right? So only thing to be checked is lock_kernel I think Cyrill