[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110708012649.GA3013@laptop.jp.oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:26:49 +0800
From: Wengang Wang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: Wengang Wang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com>, stable@...nel.org,
greg.marsden@...cle.com, joe.jin@...cle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [stable] [PATCH] mm: prevent concurrent unmap_mapping_range() on
the same inode --to stable
Hi, greg k-h
On 11-07-07 16:55, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 03:02:08PM +0800, Wengang Wang wrote:
> > mainline commit 2aa15890f3c191326678f1bd68af61ec6b8753ec
> >
> > mm: prevent concurrent unmap_mapping_range() on the same inode
> >
> > Michael Leun reported that running parallel opens on a fuse filesystem
> > can trigger a "kernel BUG at mm/truncate.c:475"
> >
> > Gurudas Pai reported the same bug on NFS.
> >
> > The reason is, unmap_mapping_range() is not prepared for more than
> > one concurrent invocation per inode. For example:
> >
> > thread1: going through a big range, stops in the middle of a vma and
> > stores the restart address in vm_truncate_count.
> >
> > thread2: comes in with a small (e.g. single page) unmap request on
> > the same vma, somewhere before restart_address, finds that the
> > vma was already unmapped up to the restart address and happily
> > returns without doing anything.
> >
> > Another scenario would be two big unmap requests, both having to
> > restart the unmapping and each one setting vm_truncate_count to its
> > own value. This could go on forever without any of them being able to
> > finish.
> >
> > Truncate and hole punching already serialize with i_mutex. Other
> > callers of unmap_mapping_range() do not, and it's difficult to get
> > i_mutex protection for all callers. In particular ->d_revalidate(),
> > which calls invalidate_inode_pages2_range() in fuse, may be called
> > with or without i_mutex.
> >
> > This patch adds a new mutex to 'struct address_space' to prevent
> > running multiple concurrent unmap_mapping_range() on the same mapping.
> >
> > [ We'll hopefully get rid of all this with the upcoming mm
> > preemptibility series by Peter Zijlstra, the "mm: Remove i_mmap_mutex
> > lockbreak" patch in particular. But that is for 2.6.39 ]
> >
> >
> > Adding this patch causes Kabi breakage.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
> > Reported-by: Michael Leun <lkml20101129@...ton.leun.net>
> > Reported-by: Gurudas Pai <gurudas.pai@...cle.com>
> > Tested-by: Gurudas Pai <gurudas.pai@...cle.com>
> > Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> > Cc: stable@...nel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Wengang Wang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com>
>
> As this patch showed up in 2.6.39, I'm confused as to what you wanted me
> to do with it, so I've dropped it from my queue.
I hope this committed in 2.6.32 stable tree please.
regards,
wengang.
--
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