Re: [PATCH] percpu_counter: Fix __percpu_counter_sum()

Mingming Cao
2008-12-08T17:55:40Z

在 2008-12-07日的 20:42 -0800，Andrew Morton写道：
> (cc stable)
>
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 10:28:21 -0500 Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 08:22:33PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > I suggest that what we do is to revert both those changes. We can
> > > worry about the possibly-unneeded spin_lock later, in a separate patch.
> > >
> > > It should have been a separate patch anyway. It's conceptually
> > > unrelated and is not a bugfix, but it was mixed in with a bugfix.
> > >
> > > Mingming, this needs urgent consideration, please. Note that I had to
> > > make additional changes to ext4 due to the subsequent introduction of
> > > the dirty_blocks counter.
> >
> > I've looked the two patches which you've queued in the -mm branch, and
> > they look correct to me.
> >
> > The bugs fixed by these patches can potentially lead to filesystem
> > corruption, since we ultimately use these fields to set the superblock
> > values. This in my mind makes them stable candidates at the very
> > least, and if we weren't so late in the 2.6.28 cycle, I'd be strongly
> > tempted to push them to Linus as a bugfix before the merge window.
> >
> > Andrew, any strong objections for me to grab them for the ext4 tree?
> > Or would you rather carry them? I would prefer that they get pushed
> > to Linus as soon as the merge window opens, which is one reason why
> > I'd prefer carry them, but we can do this either way.
> >
>
> I'm planning on sending them off to Linus for 2.6.28 this week,
> assuming nobody can think of a plausible reason to not do that.
>
> Now I didn't look _very_ closely at the chronology, but I think that
> revert-percpu-counter-clean-up-percpu_counter_sum_and_set.patch reverts
> a post-2.6.27 change, and is not needed in stable.
>
> revert-percpu_counter-new-function-percpu_counter_sum_and_set.patch
> however reverts a pre-2.6.27 change, and should be merged into 2.6.27.
> This patch reverts the addition and use of
> percpu_counter_sum_and_set(), which is racy and can corrupt the
> counters.
>
> However
> revert-percpu_counter-new-function-percpu_counter_sum_and_set.patch
> won't apply to 2.6.27 because the dirty_blocks stuff was added and
> generates rejects.
>
> So if all the above is correct, I'd propose that if and when
> revert-percpu_counter-new-function-percpu_counter_sum_and_set.patch
> hits mainline, we should ask the -stable guys to directly revert
>

Agreed.

I checked 2.6.27.8, above are correct, the
revert-percpu-counter-clean-up-percpu_counter_sum_and_set.patch is not
needed for 2.6.27.x stable tree.

Thanks again.

Mingming
> commit e8ced39d5e8911c662d4d69a342b9d053eaaac4e
> Author: Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>
> Date: Fri Jul 11 19:27:31 2008 -0400
>
> percpu_counter: new function percpu_counter_sum_and_set
>
> which should be all that 2.6.27.x needs.
>
> Agree? If so, can you please take care of getting that patch over to
> stable@kernel.org? (I added the cc:stable to the diff, so there's
> probably nothing which you need to do..)
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html