[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1213127909.20459.48.camel@localhost>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:58:29 -0400
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [2.6.26-rc4] mount.nfsv4/memory poisoning issues...
On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 15:13 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> I think you're basically correct, but it looks to me like the
> nfs_callback_mutex actually protects nfs_callback_info.task as well.
>
> If we're starting the thread, then we can't call kthread_stop on it
> until we release the mutex. So the thread can't exit until we release
> the mutex, and we can be guaranteed that this:
>
> nfs_callback_info.task = NULL;
>
> ...can't happen until after kthread_run returns and nfs_callback_up
> sets it.
>
> If that's right, then maybe this (untested, RFC only) patch would make sense?
Hmm... I suppose that is correct, but what if nfs_alloc_client() does
nfs_callback_up();
<kstrdup() fails>
nfs_callback_down();
AFAICS, if nfs_callback_down() gets called before the kthread() function
gets scheduled back in, then you can get left with a value of
nfs_callback_info.task != NULL, since nfs_callback_svc() will never be
called.
Wouldn't it therefore make more sense to clear nfs_callback_info.task in
nfs_callback_down()?
Cheers
Trond
--
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