[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKYAXd9M4wDi2tJDNjaDhHL9YapvXE71tGx_sh91DDpJNH+yKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:15:32 +0900
From: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
To: Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>
Cc: fengguang.wu@...el.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chanho0207@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] backing-dev: fix wakeup timer races with bdi_unregister()
2012/1/20 Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 05:16, Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com> wrote:
>>> bdi_debug_unregister(bdi);
>>> - device_unregister(bdi->dev);
>>> +
>>> + spin_lock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock);
>>> bdi->dev = NULL;
>>> + spin_unlock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock);
>> Hi.
>> Would you explain me why you add spinlock in here ?
>
> wakeup_timer_fn() does the following, where the
> trace_writeback_wake_forker_thread() also accesses bdi->dev.
> It does this under the wb_lock:
>
> } else if (bdi->dev) {
> /*
> * When bdi tasks are inactive for long time, they are killed.
> * In this case we have to wake-up the forker thread which
> * should create and run the bdi thread.
> */
> trace_writeback_wake_forker_thread(bdi);
>
> If we don't have the lock above, the bdi->dev could potentially be
> cleared after the check but before the tracepoint is hit, leading to a
> NULL pointer dereference.
Is there no possibility trace_writeback_wake_forker_thread is called
after spin_unlock of bdi->de= null ?
--
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