[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110725024444.GP24703@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 03:44:44 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kdevtmpfs oops since yesterdays vfs merge
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 09:56:12PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> [ 7.760774] dracut: luksOpen /dev/sda2 luks-b5a1fb36-5672-4191-a260-e3f389eb0bb6
> [ 14.787158] nodename: dm-0
> [ 15.082391] nodename: dm-0
>
>
> when it triggers the bug_on(), it's that second nodename that is garbage.
Interesting... The next experiment would be to stick BUG_ON(!req.dev)
into devtmpfs_create_node() right after the assigment to that field.
We couldn't be hit by the lack of barriers here, could we? Store to
req.dev happens before spin_unlock(&req_lock), so by the time when
that request is seen by loop in devtmpfsd() and passed to handle() it
should be seen - we have grabbed req_lock, found a pointer to req, dropped
req_lock and called handle(). Should've been enough...
Might be interesting to print &req from devtmpfs_create_node(), both on
entry and on exit, and print req right before the call of handle()...
Incidentally, that disassembly shows one really ugly thing - offset of
->devt in struct device is 0x3c0. IOW, each of those suckers eats a
kilobyte... ;-/
--
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