Hi,
[please CC me in any reply]
I'm not sure that dup_task_struct() must copy the fs_excl field. This can leads
to
problems if do_fork() is somehow called while fs_excl!=0.
For example, the jffs2 code creates a kernel thread
(jffs2_garbage_collect_thread)
in a path where lock_super() is held (i.e. by do_remount_sb, during -o
remount,rw).
When the new thread expires, a badness happens (kernel/exit.c:787). This problem
was observed by a couple of people and can be easily reproduced:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2005-August/013487.html
http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2005-September/031109.html
At first glance, I'd simply set fs_excl to 0 for every new thread in
dup_task_struct:
--- linux-2.6.13/kernel/fork.c 2005-08-29 01:41:01.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.13-new/kernel/fork.c 2005-09-07 17:06:23.000000000 +0200
@@ -173,6 +173,7 @@ static struct task_struct *dup_task_stru
*tsk = *orig;
tsk->thread_info = ti;
ti->task = tsk;
+ atomic_set(&tsk->fs_excl, 0);
/* One for us, one for whoever does the "release_task()" (usually
parent) */
atomic_set(&tsk->usage,2);
but I've a doubt about the WARN_ON in exit.c being actually here to report
these
kernel_thread() users (like jffs2)...
Any comment/suggestion?
Thanks,
Giancarlo
-
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/
