[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0804211023090.2779@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.25-git2: BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at
ffffffffffffffff
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> I did take a quick look for improperly freeing dentries -- unhashed
> dentries are freed directly, so if there is a code path that somehow
> unhashes dentries and then d_free()s them without a grace period, we
> have a problem.
No, not even then.
We *always* unhash the dentries before freeing them, but we very
consciously use "hlist_del_rcu()" on them, not "hlist_del_init()".
That, in turn, will mean that the "pprev" pointer will still be set, so
the "hlist_unhashed()" thing will *not* trigger.
IOW, when we do that direct-free with:
if (hlist_unhashed(&dentry->d_hash))
__d_free(dentry);
the "hlist_unhashed()" will literally guarantee that i has *never* been on
a hash-list at all!
(If you want to test whether it is currently unhashed or not, you actually
have to use "d_unhashed()" on the dentry under the dentry lock, which
tests the DCACHE_UNHASHED bit).
Of course, there could be some bug in there, but the thing is, none of
this has even changed in a long time, certainly not since 2.6.25. Which is
why I think the dcache code is all fine, and the bug comes from somewhere
else corrupting the data structures.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists