[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200415071425.GA21099@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 00:14:25 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, axboe@...nel.dk,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, bvanassche@....org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com,
jack@...e.cz, ming.lei@...hat.com, nstange@...e.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com, yukuai3@...wei.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] blktrace: refcount the request_queue during ioctl
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 06:16:49AM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> The BLKTRACESETUP above works on request_queue which later
> LOOP_CTL_DEL races on and sweeps the debugfs dir underneath us.
> If you use this commit alone though, this doesn't fix the race issue
> however, and that's because of both still the debugfs_lookup() use
> and that we're still using asynchronous removal at this point.
>
> refcounting will just ensure we don't take the request_queue underneath
> our noses.
>
> Should I just add this to the commit log?
That sounds much more useful than the trace.
Btw, Isn't blk_get_queue racy as well? Shouldn't we check
blk_queue_dying after getting the reference and undo it if the queue is
indeeed dying?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists