[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A3EE01C.5090600@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:36:28 +0800
From: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] bugs in jbd2_dev_to_name() (was Re: [PATCH 00/11] [GIT
PULL] more updates for the tag format)
Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:14:23PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>>> rcu_read_lock();
>>> if (devcache[i] && devcache[i]->device == device) {
>>> ret = devcache[i]->devname;
>>> rcu_read_unlock();
>>> return ret;
>> It doesn't seem safe to dereference @ret outside rcu read section.
>
> Note the comments at the beginning of the function:
>
Ah, I overlooked the comments.
But the patch that adds rcu locking around trace event prints
never gets merged:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/15/549
Steven?
> The caller should use rcu_read_lock() in order to make sure the
> device name stays valid until its done with it. We use
> rcu_read_lock() as well to make sure we're safe in case the caller
> gets sloppy, and because rcu_read_lock() is cheap and can be safely
> nested.
>
> I suppose I should change the wording to indicate that it adds a bit
> more safety (as in, the crash won't happen inside this function, but
> as far as the caller is concerned, all bets are off!)
>
--
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