[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52FAD958.6020505@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:15:52 +0800
From: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH cgroup/for-3.14-fixes] cgroup: protect modifications to
cgroup_idr with cgroup_mutex
On 2014/2/12 0:26, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 11-02-14 10:41:05, Tejun Heo wrote:
> [...]
>> @@ -4254,12 +4256,12 @@ static long cgroup_create(struct cgroup *parent, struct dentry *dentry,
>>
>> return 0;
>>
>> -err_unlock:
>> - mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
>> - /* Release the reference count that we took on the superblock */
>> - deactivate_super(sb);
>> err_free_id:
>> idr_remove(&root->cgroup_idr, cgrp->id);
>> + /* Release the reference count that we took on the superblock */
>> + deactivate_super(sb);
>> +err_unlock:
>> + mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
>> err_free_name:
>> kfree(rcu_dereference_raw(cgrp->name));
>> err_free_cgrp:
>
> Do I have to change deactivate_super vs. mutex_unlock ordering in my
> backport for 3.12 as well?
>
Your change is wrong that you shouldn't drop sb refcnt in err_unlock path.
But you made me think if it's OK to hold cgroup_mutex while calling deactivate_super(),
and the answer is NO! deactive_super() may call cgroup_kill_sb() which will
acquire cgroup_mutex.
I'll update the patch.
Thank Tejun we won't be entangled with vfs internal anymore after coverting
to kernfs.
--
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