[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140203153628.5e186b0e4e81400773faa7ac@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 15:36:28 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Weijie Yang <weijie.yang@...sung.com>
Cc: hughd@...gle.com, "'Minchan Kim'" <minchan@...nel.org>,
shli@...nel.org, "'Bob Liu'" <bob.liu@...cle.com>,
weijie.yang.kh@...il.com,
"'Seth Jennings'" <sjennings@...iantweb.net>,
"'Heesub Shin'" <heesub.shin@...sung.com>, mquzik@...hat.com,
"'Linux-MM'" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"'linux-kernel'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] mm/swap: prevent concurrent swapon on the same
S_ISBLK blockdev
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:03:04 +0800 Weijie Yang <weijie.yang@...sung.com> wrote:
> When swapon the same S_ISBLK blockdev concurrent, the allocated two
> swap_info could hold the same block_device, because claim_swapfile()
> allow the same holder(here, it is sys_swapon function).
>
> To prevent this situation, This patch adds swap_lock protect to ensure
> we can find this situation and return -EBUSY for one swapon call.
>
> As for S_ISREG swapfile, claim_swapfile() already prevent this scenario
> by holding inode->i_mutex.
>
> This patch is just for a rare scenario, aim to correct of code.
>
hm, OK. Would it be saner to pass a unique `holder' to
claim_swapfile()? Say, `p'?
Truly, I am fed up with silly swapon/swapoff races. How often does
anyone call these things? Let's slap a huge lock around the whole
thing and be done with it?
--
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