[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090424071536.GF8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:15:36 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...ware.it>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
LFSDEV <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] vfs: umount_begin BKL pushdown v2
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 08:13:12AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 09:06:53AM +0200, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote:
> > static void cifs_umount_begin(struct super_block *sb)
> > {
> > - struct cifs_sb_info *cifs_sb = CIFS_SB(sb);
> > + struct cifs_sb_info *cifs_sb;
> > struct cifsTconInfo *tcon;
> >
> > - if (cifs_sb == NULL)
> > + lock_kernel();
> > + cifs_sb = CIFS_SB(sb);
> > +
> > + if (cifs_sb == NULL) {
> > + unlock_kernel();
> > return;
> > + }
> >
> > tcon = cifs_sb->tcon;
> > - if (tcon == NULL)
> > + if (tcon == NULL) {
> > + unlock_kernel();
> > return;
> > + }
>
> AFAICS, both CIFS_SB(sb) and ->tcon are assign-once, so lock_kernel() should
> really go here (if it can't be removed completely, of course, but that's up
> to CIFS folks). Applied with such modification.
PS: I suspect that checks for NULL are actually "what if kernel memory got
corrupted", but I'm too lazy to verify that at the moment; again, up to
CIFS folks.
--
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