From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758166AbcATUVK (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:21:10 -0500
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:50890 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755351AbcATUVI (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:21:08 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:20:59 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] futex: Remove requirement for lock_page in
Message-ID: <20160120202059.GH27825@linux-uzut.site>
References: <1453249853-1184-1-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <20160120195523.GF27825@linux-uzut.site>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601202058520.3575@nanos>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601202058520.3575@nanos>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016, Bueso wrote:
>> > +
>> > +		/* Should be impossible but lets be paranoid for now */
>> > +		BUG_ON(inode->i_mapping != mapping);
>>
>> Hmm, do we want to transform this into an if and do rcu unlock and then just
>> call BUG()? I't doesn't matter at this point _anyway_, but it would be the
>> right
>> thing to do, no?
>
>The better solution is to err out gracefully.
>
>    	   if (WARN_ON_ONCE(inode->i_mapping != mapping) {
>	      	   err = -EFAULT;
>		   rcu_read_unlock();
>		   goto out;
>    	   }
>
>Hmm?

Ok, Linus would probably like that as well. If we're going this way,
we also need to release inode reference, before the rcu unlock.

Thanks,
Davidlohr