linux-kernel - Re: -mm: xfs lockdep warning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100920191355.GA28443@infradead.org>
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:13:55 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Yang Ruirui <ruirui.r.yang@...to.com>, hch@...radead.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alex Elder <aelder@....com>
Subject: Re: -mm: xfs lockdep warning

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:52:27AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Christoph, this implies an inode that has been marked for reclaim
> that has not passed through xfs_fs_evict_inode() after being
> initialised. If it went through the eviction process, the iolock
> would have been re-initialised to a different context. Can you think
> of any path that can get here without going through ->evict? I can't
> off the top of my head...

I think this could happen if the init_inode_always during
re-initialization of an inode in reclaim fails in iget.  I have a patch
to add that I'll run through xfsqa.  It should only happen very rarely.

--
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/