On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:17:09 +0100 (CET) Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> I checked ext3_ioctl and it looked largely safe to not be used
> without BKL.  So convert it over to unlocked_ioctl.
> 
> The only case where I wasn't quite sure was for the
> dynamic fs grow ioctls versus umounting -- I kept the BKL for those. 
> 

Please cpoy linux-ext4 on ext2/3/4 material.

I skippped a lot of these patches because I just got bored of fixing
rejects.  Now is a very optimistic time to be raising patches against
mainline.

I'm going to work on getting a unified devel tree operating: one which
contains everyone's latest stuff and is updated daily.  Basically it'll be
-mm without a couple of the quilt trees.  People can then prepare patches
against that, as it seems that most can't be bothered patching against -mm,
let alone building and testing it.  More later.

> +             /* AK: not sure the BKL is needed, but this might prevent
> +              * races against umount */
> +             lock_kernel();
>               err = ext3_group_extend(sb, EXT3_SB(sb)->s_es, n_blocks_count);
>               journal_lock_updates(EXT3_SB(sb)->s_journal);
>               journal_flush(EXT3_SB(sb)->s_journal);
>               journal_unlock_updates(EXT3_SB(sb)->s_journal);
> +             unlock_kernel();
>  
>               return err;
>       }
> @@ -245,11 +249,14 @@ flags_err:
>               if (copy_from_user(&input, (struct ext3_new_group_input __user 
> *)arg,
>                               sizeof(input)))
>                       return -EFAULT;
> -
> +             /* AK: not sure the BKL is needed, but this might prevent
> +              * races against umount */
> +             lock_kernel();
>               err = ext3_group_add(sb, &input);
>               journal_lock_updates(EXT3_SB(sb)->s_journal);
>               journal_flush(EXT3_SB(sb)->s_journal);
>               journal_unlock_updates(EXT3_SB(sb)->s_journal);
> +             unlock_kernel();
>  

The ext3_ioctl() caller has an open fd against the fs - should be
sufficient to keep unmount away?

(gets even more rejects, drops all the fasync patches too)

It's all reached the stage of stupid.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to