[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1307713566.2577.20.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:46:05 -0400
From: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Cc: John McCutchan <john@...nmccutchan.com>,
Robert Love <rlove@...ve.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Race inotify_rm_watch vs umount
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 20:20 +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking the race inotify_rm_watch() vs umount(). This race become the
> cause of Oops. You can see the oops at
>
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22602
>
> So, what race?
Ok, I see what you are saying, I'll see what I can do. I'm a little
scared to call something like iput() under a lock though. I might be
able to make the bigest lock a mutex and fix this....
I'll add this to my test suite.
-Eric
>
> umount inotify_rm_watch
> ... fsnotify_destroy_mark()
> fsnotify_destroy_inode_mark()
> /* removed from i_fsnotify_marks */
> generic_shutdown_super()
> fsnotify_unmount_inodes()
> put_super()
> iput()
> iput_final()
> /* this is after put_super() */
>
> Like above, inotify doesn't guarantee to call final iput() before
> put_super(). With this violation, FS driver can oops.
>
> Well, so, what are requested for inotify? We can't simply take
> sb->s_umount in inotify_rm_watch()?
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks.
--
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