[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <592E7F56.7050400@163.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 16:31:18 +0800
From: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@....com>
To: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@....com>
CC: kent.overstreet@...il.com, shli@...nel.org, axboe@...com,
mchristi@...hat.com, git@...ux.ewheeler.net, colyli@...e.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, wangyijing@...wei.com, mingo@...nel.org,
mhocko@...e.com, linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcache: Fix a sleep-in-atomic bug
On 05/31/2017 03:23 PM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> The driver may sleep under a spin lock, and the function call path is:
> journal_wait_for_write (acquire the lock by spin_lock)
> closure_sync
> schedule --> may sleep
>
> To fix it, the lock is released before "closure_sync", and the lock is
> acquired again after this function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai<baijiaju1990@....com>
> ---
> drivers/md/bcache/journal.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/journal.c b/drivers/md/bcache/journal.c
> index 1198e53..ad47c36 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/journal.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/journal.c
> @@ -724,6 +724,7 @@ static struct journal_write *journal_wait_for_write(struct cache_set *c,
> btree_flush_write(c);
> }
>
> + spin_unlock(&c->journal.lock);
> closure_sync(&cl);
> spin_lock(&c->journal.lock);
> wait = true;
Sorry, my patch is not correct, and it will cause double unlock.
Please ignore my patch.
Jia-Ju Bai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists