From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759838AbXEaRqZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2007 13:46:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755820AbXEaRqS (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2007 13:46:18 -0400 Received: from sandeen.net ([209.173.210.139]:29724 "EHLO sandeen.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753262AbXEaRqS (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2007 13:46:18 -0400 Message-ID: <465F09E7.7000300@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 12:46:15 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Macintosh/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cyrill Gorcunov CC: LKML , Jan Kara , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF References: <20070524165935.GB19709@duck.suse.cz> <20070524170554.GC19709@duck.suse.cz> <20070524203653.GA7693@duck.suse.cz> <465DF0B4.2050203@sandeen.net> <465DF91F.3010201@sandeen.net> <20070531174201.GB8392@cvg> In-Reply-To: <20070531174201.GB8392@cvg> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > Eric, could you please try the following: > > 1) declare the spinlock in the top of inode.c as > > DEFINE_SPINLOCK(udf_drop_lock); > > 2) replace in udf_drop_inode() > > kernel_lock -> spin_lock(&udf_drop_lock); > kernel_unlock -> spin_unlock(&udf_drop_lock); > > I'm not sure if it help but you may try ;) > > Cyrill > I'm sure it'll avoid the deadlock but.... Any sense of what the BKL is actually trying to protect in this case? Is it really only trying to prevent concurrent prealloc-discarders, or is there more? -Eric