[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxKgZyqbn1M0sAL0CoLxmKSzAALYBTPLYVM7OpG_M_B=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 15:20:40 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: BUG_ON(nd->inode != parent->d_inode);
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Ok, got something more meaningful out of the lookup_slow trace.
>
> [ 66.082984] parent->dname.name (06b6b6b6b6b6b6b)
> [ 66.083637] parent =
>
> At first I thought AH-HA! SLAB POISON!
> But look closer.. it's shifted by 8 bits.
Or just the high byte has been cleared.
But yeah, if the parent has been free'd then that certainly explains
why the "impossible" test of
nd->inode != parent->d_inode
would trigger. And it would explain any odd crashes at lookup time
too. In particular, the NULL pointer one you reference seems to be
dir->i_op->lookup being NULL, so calling it (understandable) ends up
doing bad things.
I really don't understand how the parent could be free'd early.
Dentries are freed by RCU, and the dentry lookup code is some of the
most well-tested out there. I don't see how /proc could mess that up,
unless it just completely screws up some refcounting thing or other.
Linus
--
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