On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 02:30:24AM +0400, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
> Commit 0244756edc4b ("ufs: sb mutex merge + mutex_destroy") introduces
> deadlocks in ufs_new_inode() and ufs_free_inode() that call lock_ufs()
> being already invoked with mutex held.
>
> ufs_free_inode() is always invoked with mutex locked, while
> ufs_new_inode() is called with mutex locked two times of four.
>
> The patch proposes to resolve the issue by agreement to call
> ufs_new_inode() and ufs_free_inode() with mutex unheld.
> @@ -902,9 +902,6 @@ void ufs_evict_inode(struct inode * inode)
> invalidate_inode_buffers(inode);
> clear_inode(inode);
>
> - if (want_delete) {
> - lock_ufs(inode->i_sb);
> - ufs_free_inode (inode);
> - unlock_ufs(inode->i_sb);
> - }
> + if (want_delete)
> + ufs_free_inode(inode);
Your commit message makes no sense - ufs_evict_inode() is *never* called
with that lock held, for one thing. I agree that "ufs: sb mutex merge +
mutex_destroy" was been badly broken and apparently never tested, though -
the bugs are real.
Please, write a saner commit message; what happens is that
ufs_{new,free}_inode() take the damn lock themselves these days, so
their caller shouldn't do that.
--
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/
