From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Tim Gardner <timg@tpi.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] 2.6.39-rc7+ fs: Fix spinlock recursion in get_active_super()
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 00:06:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110518230614.GG19987@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110518163500.5CA99F912D@sepang.rtg.net>
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:35:00AM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
> >From c7d9161350188c8132210eea5c7f6edff94e6c9c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>
> Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 10:30:02 -0600
> Subject: [PATCH] fs: Fix spinlock recursion in get_active_super()
>
> Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>
> ---
> fs/super.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
> index 8a06881..e203e2d 100644
> --- a/fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/super.c
> @@ -503,8 +503,8 @@ struct super_block *get_active_super(struct block_device *bdev)
> if (!bdev)
> return NULL;
>
> -restart:
> spin_lock(&sb_lock);
> +restart:
> list_for_each_entry(sb, &super_blocks, s_list) {
> if (list_empty(&sb->s_instances))
> continue;
WTF? Have you even tried that? The *only* place that contains goto restart
is a few line below and it's
if (grab_super(sb)) /* drops sb_lock */
return sb;
else
goto restart;
See that comment in there? Now let's see if it's true:
static int grab_super(struct super_block *s) __releases(sb_lock)
{
if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&s->s_active)) {
spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
return 1;
}
/* it's going away */
s->s_count++;
spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
/* wait for it to die */
down_write(&s->s_umount);
up_write(&s->s_umount);
put_super(s);
return 0;
}
Note spin_unlock on both paths. Morever, note blocking operations on the
path that returns 0. If we had somehow managed to get through that without
dropping sb_locked we'd be FUBAR for obvious reasons.
IOW, if your testing had *ever* hit that goto, you'd get instant trouble.
On the exit from get_active_super() you'd hit spin_unlock(&sb_lock), with
rather nasty consequences the next time somebody would try to get it...
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-18 23:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-18 16:35 [PATCH 1/1] 2.6.39-rc7+ fs: Fix spinlock recursion in get_active_super() Tim Gardner
2011-05-18 18:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-05-18 18:51 ` Tim Gardner
2011-05-18 23:06 ` Al Viro [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110518230614.GG19987@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=timg@tpi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox