Technically we do not need to hold ep->mtx during ep_free since we are
certain there are no other users of ep at that point. However, lockdep
complains with a "suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!" message;
so lock the mutex before ep_remove to silence the warning.
Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <normalper...@yhbt.net>
Cc: Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Arve Hjønnevåg <a...@android.com>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davi...@xmailserver.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com>
Cc: NeilBrown <ne...@suse.de>,
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@sisk.pl>
---
I considered using lockdep_off()/lockdep_on(), but I figure that may
hide other bugs...
fs/eventpoll.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/eventpoll.c b/fs/eventpoll.c
index 633e69f..d71b754 100644
--- a/fs/eventpoll.c
+++ b/fs/eventpoll.c
@@ -745,11 +745,15 @@ static void ep_free(struct eventpoll *ep)
* point we are sure no poll callbacks will be lingering around, and
also by
* holding "epmutex" we can be sure that no file cleanup code will hit
* us during this operation. So we can avoid the lock on "ep->lock".
+ * We do not need to lock ep->mtx, either, we only do it to prevent
+ * a lockdep warning.
*/
+ mutex_lock(&ep->mtx);
while ((rbp = rb_first(&ep->rbr)) != NULL) {
epi = rb_entry(rbp, struct epitem, rbn);
ep_remove(ep, epi);
}
+ mutex_unlock(&ep->mtx);
mutex_unlock(&epmutex);
mutex_destroy(&ep->mtx);
--
Eric Wong
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
