[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E35C19F.6090202@fusionio.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 22:57:03 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
CC: Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: loop: fix deadlock when sysfs and LOOP_CLR_FD race against each
other
On 2011-07-31 22:42, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 22:20, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-07-30 21:19, Kay Sievers wrote:
>>> Instead of taking the lo_ctl_mutex from sysfs code, take the inner
>>> lo->lo_lock, to protect the access to the backing_file data.
>>>
>>> Thanks to Tejun for help debugging and finding a solution.
>>
>> Looks good, looks like something that should have a stable tag as well?
>
> Right, I think it makes sense to have that in -stable.
>
> It's pretty hard to trigger, I had multiple threads running, crawling
> /sys and adding/binding/unbinding/removing 1000s of loop devices, and
> it takes several minutes sometimes until its hit. So I only tested it
> on top of the 3 loop-control patches, but the issue should exist in
> the current code as well.
I applied those for 3.1 as well, but I'm thinking they probably should
have been queued up for 3.2 instead.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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