[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegvVq3z0CDYb4M4QSCko9Ckw6DOizeHBp=J==Muqn21Yhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:03:35 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fuse: Fix race in fuse_writepage_in_flight()
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 4:55 PM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
>
> On 15.01.2019 18:37, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:03 PM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10.01.2019 14:00, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi, Miklos,
> >>>>
> >>>> any comments about this?
> >>>
> >>> Is there a reproducer? ISTR that fsx-linux with mmaps enabled was
> >>> good for stressing the writeback_cache code.
> >>
> >> There is no a reproducer, since I found that by eyes during preparation of another patchset.
> >
> > That's good. It would even better to have a reproducer, but it
> > doesn't look easy...
> >
> > Completely redid this and reordered the patchset so this change is
> > made before the locking changes actually introduce the bug.
>
> Hm, I meant that I found this during preparation of the patchset,
> but not that fi->lock patchset introduces the bug. I don't think
> the patchset is involved:
>
> 1)before we had race, because different locks fc->lock and fiq->waitq.lock
> are taken in fuse_dev_read() and fuse_writepage_in_flight();
> 2)after we have the same race, and the locks are fi->lock and fiq->waitq.lock.
Ah, so the race was introduced earlier, when fiq->waitq.lock was split
out from fc->lock.
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists