[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Tt8HRmqODM_qPAbGMeQ9UvVDXfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:52:43 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: synchronize_rcu when unregister_filesystem success
not failure
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Milton Miller <miltonm@....com> wrote:
>
> While checking unregister_filesystem for saftey vs extra calls for
> "ext4: register ext2 and ext3 alias after ext4" I realized that
> the synchronize_rcu() was called on the error path but not on
> the success path.
Good catch.
I think this is the bug that then caused us to do commit d863b50ab013
("vfs: call rcu_barrier after ->kill_sb()")
That said, that commit says that "synchronize_rcu()" isn't enough, and
uses rcu_barrier().
Which _should_ mean that there are no actual users that care about RCU
events by the time you actually hit "unregister_filesystem()".
So I think your patch is correct, but won't actually matter. But maybe
I'm missing something.
> Should we call it in both?
No, I think the success path is the one that would matter.
Comments?
Linus
--
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