[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200423110738.GA102241@blackbook>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 13:07:38 +0200
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: s390 boot woe due to "block: fix busy device checking in
blk_drop_partitions"
Hi.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 07:45:44AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> @@ -496,7 +496,7 @@ int blk_drop_partitions(struct gendisk *disk, struct block_device *bdev)
> - if (bdev->bd_part_count || bdev->bd_openers)
> + if (bdev->bd_part_count || bdev->bd_openers > 1)
> return -EBUSY;
I noticed this (and the previous patch) change unmasks race between
ioctl(LOOP_SET_STATUS64, ... lo_flags=LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN ...) and udev
processing loop device uevents. See [1] for details.
Should the condition be changed in the case of newly setup loop devices?
(Or shouldn't the ioctl propagate EBUSY in its return value?)
Thanks,
Michal
[1] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1169932
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists