[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130312190955.GB19035@logfs.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:09:55 -0400
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: pipe_release oops.
On Sun, 10 March 2013 23:33:18 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 01:26:49PM -0500, J??rn Engel wrote:
>
> > + files_cookie = async_schedule(exit_files_async, tsk);
> > exit_mm(tsk);
> >
> > if (group_dead)
> > @@ -990,7 +998,7 @@ void do_exit(long code)
> >
> > exit_sem(tsk);
> > exit_shm(tsk);
> > - exit_files(tsk);
> > + async_synchronize_cookie(files_cookie);
>
> That doesn't do what you seem to think it's doing. It does *not* wait
> for the completion of that sucker's execution - only the ones scheduled
> before it. IOW, your exit_files_async() might very well be executed
> *after* do_exit() completes and tsk gets reused.
Indeed. Maybe async_barrier() would have been a less dangerous name
in the presence of people like me. Oh well!
I have kernel/async.c on my list anyway. We've had a number of cases
where a single bad scsi device turned the "do the scanning
asynchronously" idea into a "make completely unrelated stuff
synchonously wait for a broken disk" reality.
Thanks for spotting this!
Jörn
--
The cheapest, fastest and most reliable components of a computer
system are those that aren't there.
-- Gordon Bell, DEC labratories
--
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