[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19f34abd0806090728s3b3fdbeq7dd3d31d02c8f28e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:28:09 +0200
From: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To: "Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Jens Axboe" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...e.de>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"Kay Sievers" <kay.sievers@...y.org>, "Neil Brown" <neilb@...e.de>,
"Mariusz Kozlowski" <m.kozlowski@...land.pl>,
"Dave Young" <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
"Cornelia Huck" <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [bug, 2.6.26-rc4/rc5] sporadic bootup crashes in blk_lookup_devt()/prepare_namespace()
On 6/9/08, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com> wrote:
> It seems that this list (block_class.devices) is protected by
> block_class_lock in block/genhd.c. This list is only ever modified by
> device_add() and device_del() in drivers/base/core.c. Both of those
> are (only) protected by dev->class->sem, however. Is there a locking
> mismatch here? But none of the locking code here seems to be changed
> in years...
I think this seems correct.
Everywhere else where we traverse the struct class->devices list, they
have down(&class->sem); first and up(&class->sem); afterwards.
Commit fd04897bb20be29d60f7e426a053545aebeaa61a even has this hunk:
@@ -177,8 +177,7 @@ struct class {
struct list_head devices;
struct list_head interfaces;
struct kset class_dirs;
- struct semaphore sem; /* locks both the children and interface
-
+ struct semaphore sem; /* locks children, devices, interfaces */
struct class_attribute * class_attrs;
struct class_device_attribute * class_dev_attrs;
struct device_attribute * dev_attrs;
So why doesn't block/genhd.c do this too? It seems to me that the
mutex locking here is simply a remnant of old code that happened to
not crash in most cases by chance.
Vegard
--
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists