[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080117154243.9ee4265c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:42:43 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Cc: olel@....pl, davem@...emloft.net, jeff@...zik.org,
shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch for 2.6.24? 1/1] bonding: locking fix
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:01:13 -0800
Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com> wrote:
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> [...]
> >That's bond_lock.
> >
> >This patch (below) addresses what appears to me to be an obvious
> >imbalance in rtnl_lock.
> >
> >I don't care how it's fixed, really. Someone please fix it?
>
> I posted a correct patch for this a few days ago:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=119975746803886&w=2
>
> The correct fix requires more than simply removing the rtnl calls.
>
> I've got a few other patches in the pipeline, so I'm planning to
> repost the set the above patch was a part of plus a few others, most
> likely tomorrow.
Can we get this bug fixed please? Today? It has been known about for more
than two months.
I can only assume that people don't use this feature much because this bug
will kill your kernel, every time.
Applying this:
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c~bonding-locking-fix
+++ a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
@@ -1111,8 +1111,6 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_primary(str
out:
write_unlock_bh(&bond->lock);
- rtnl_unlock();
-
return count;
}
static DEVICE_ATTR(primary, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, bonding_show_primary, bonding_store_primary);
is better than doing nothing.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists