On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]> wrote: > > This was my brief reaction too, this code path almost certainly has a > use-after-free, and we should fix the concurrency between the two > places in some correct way..
First of all, why use-after-free could trigger an imbalance unlock? IOW, why do we have to solve use-after-free to fix this imbalance unlock? Second of all, my patch is _not_ intended to solve any use-after-free, it only solves the imbalance unlock. I never claim it solves more anywhere. Third of all, the use-after-free I can see (race with ->close) exists before my patch, this patch doesn't make it better or worse, nor I have any intend to fix it.
