lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:23:45 -0400 From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com> To: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com> Cc: Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] nfs: avoid swap-over-NFS deadlock On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com> wrote: > > Lockdep warns about a inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> > {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage. The culpritt is the inode->i_mutex taken in > nfs_file_direct_write(). This code was introduced by commit a9ab5e840669 > ("nfs: page cache invalidation for dio"). > This naive test patch avoid to take the mutex on a swapfile and makes > lockdep happy again. However I don't know much about NFS code and I > assume it's probably not the proper solution. Any thought? > > Signed-off-by: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com> NFS is not the only O_DIRECT implementation to set the inode->i_mutex. Why can't this be fixed in the generic swap code instead of adding yet-another-exception-for-IS_SWAPFILE? Cheers Trond -- 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