From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752465AbaIAXNK (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2014 19:13:10 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:42794 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751952AbaIAXNI (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2014 19:13:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 00:13:07 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Alexey Khoroshilov Cc: Evgeniy Dushistov , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ldv-project@linuxtesting.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ufs: fix deadlocks after mutex merge Message-ID: <20140901231306.GL7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1409610624-10898-1-git-send-email-khoroshilov@ispras.ru> <20140901230835.GK7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140901230835.GK7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 12:08:35AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > Your commit message makes no sense - ufs_evict_inode() is *never* called > with that lock held, for one thing. I agree that "ufs: sb mutex merge + > mutex_destroy" was been badly broken and apparently never tested, though - > the bugs are real. > > Please, write a saner commit message; what happens is that > ufs_{new,free}_inode() take the damn lock themselves these days, so > their caller shouldn't do that. PS: after rereading your mail, I see what you meant to say, but it really wasn't clear enough. The crucial part is that the lock is *always* taken by free/new, not that some of the callers take it and some do not.