[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49BADC23.3060605@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:20:19 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix bb_prealloc_list corruption due to wrong group locking
Eric Sandeen wrote:
> This is for Red Hat bug 490026,
> EXT4 panic, list corruption in ext4_mb_new_inode_pa
>
> (this was on backported ext4 from 2.6.29)
>
> We hit a BUG() in __list_add from ext4_mb_new_inode_pa()
> because the list head pointed to a removed item:
>
> list_add corruption. next->prev should be ffff81042f2fe158,
> but was 0000000000200200
>
> (0000000000200200 is LIST_POISON2, set when the item is deleted)
>
> ext4_lock_group(sb, group) is supposed to protect this list for
> each group, and a common code flow is this:
>
> ext4_get_group_no_and_offset(sb, pa->pa_pstart, &grp, NULL);
> ext4_lock_group(sb, grp);
> list_del(&pa->pa_group_list);
> ext4_unlock_group(sb, grp);
>
> so its critical that we get the right group number back for
> this pa->pa_pstart block.
>
> however, ext4_mb_put_pa passes in (pa->pa_pstart - 1) with a
> comment, "-1 is to protect from crossing allocation group"
>
> Other list-manipulators do not use the "-1" so we have the
> potential to lock the wrong group and race. Given how the
> ext4_get_group_no_and_offset() function works, it doesn't seem
> to me that the subtraction is correct.
Hm, unless pa_pstart gets advanced to the point where it's in the next
group when it's used up... might be more reading to do here.
-Eric
--
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