[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110216160643.GE22723@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:06:43 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.38-rc5
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 07:46:20AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Using this kernel on my dev machine (2x4x2 cpus), I hit BUG_ON() in
> > fs/namei.c:1461 on my kernel build (make -j16)
>
> Uhhuh. We replaced one BUG_ON() with another.
>
> And I think it's a really silly problem too: when Al moved the
>
> /* We drop rcu-walk here */
> if (nameidata_dentry_drop_rcu_maybe(nd, path->dentry))
> return -ECHILD;
>
> test into do_follow_link(), he _should_ have moved the BUG_ON() in
> there too, methinks. He didn't, and as a result the BUG_ON() is now
> before the "drop_rcu_maybe".
>
> This patch should fix it. Al? Comments?
Sigh... I see what's going on. We'd got inode from dentry that is getting
crapped under us. We will *not* survive dropping RCU - it's bad enough for
full restart in normal mode. So right after we'd seen that (already wrong)
inode has ->follow_link(), we decide to drop RCU. Originally this BUG_ON
hadn't been reached in that case - we had already failed with -ECHILD before
we got to it. Now we don't...
_However_, I don't like passing inode to do_follow_link(). I'd rather set
nd->inode to inode first and use it there. Let me think a bit and see if
it's feasible...
--
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