[ removed Patrick, added Greg KH since I ignorantly looked at the file
for maintainer instead of the MAINTAINERS file. Well, I actually did
look at MAINTAINERS but I stupidly did a case sensitive search for
"sysfs" instead of SYSFS ]
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 02:09 +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 04:28:38PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 01:27 +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > sysfs_attach_attr() is called from sysfs_lookup() only, and which in turn
> > > is called under parent inode's i_mutex from VFS layer.
> >
> > Ah, I didn't see the parent mutex lock.
> >
> > Does sysfs support hard links? Where an inode may belong to two
> > different dentrys?
> >
> No, only symbolic links are supported.
>
> > >
> > > But you did help in spotting a bug which could happen like this
> > >
> > > i_mutext held
> > > sysfs_lookup()
> > > -->sysfs_attach_attr()
> > > --> sysfs_create() fails
> > > --> sd->s_dentry has a NULL d_inode
> > > --> sysfs_put() frees the sysfs_dirent
> > > --> error returned to lookup
> > > i_mutex released
> > >
> > > But the sysfs_dirent with NULL d_inode is never unlinked from
> > > the parent sysfs_dirent. And later on this happens
> >
> > But doesn't this only happen in case of no memory?
> >
> Right, but this is a bug anyway.
>
> > Thomas, is the system running low on memory?
> >
> > >
> > > vfs_readdir()
> > > i_mutex held
> > > -->sysfs_readdir()
> > > --> trips on the freed sysfs_dirent with NULL inode.
> > >
> > > I am not sure if it is possible for other thread to see the freed
> > > sysfs_dirent and trip at sd->s_dentry->d_inode but the sysfs_dirent
> > > should have been unlinked from the parent sysfs_dirent's s_children list.
> > >
> > > > Now the question is, is it safe to add the test for s_dentry->d_inode too.
> > > > I ask this because the s_dentry is in the process of being filled, and
> > > > I don't know what effect this will have on what readdir wants. I guess
> > > > it may be safe, so I'm giving this patch:
> > > >
> > > > -- Steve
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Description:
> > > >
> > > > In the process of creating a sysfs attribute, we can have a state
> > > > where the sysfs descriptor can have a dentry with a NULL inode.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > Index: linux-2.6.18-rc1/fs/sysfs/dir.c
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- linux-2.6.18-rc1.orig/fs/sysfs/dir.c 2006-07-12 09:43:10.000000000 -0400
> > > > +++ linux-2.6.18-rc1/fs/sysfs/dir.c 2006-07-12 10:01:18.000000000 -0400
> > > > @@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ static int sysfs_readdir(struct file * f
> > > >
> > > > name = sysfs_get_name(next);
> > > > len = strlen(name);
> > > > - if (next->s_dentry)
> > > > + if (next->s_dentry && next->s_dentry->d_inode)
> > > > ino = next->s_dentry->d_inode->i_ino;
> > > > else
> > > > ino = iunique(sysfs_sb, 2);
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think this patch only fixes the sympton. I have tried to keep the
> > > assumption of no negative dentries (dentries with NULL d_inode) valid
> > > in sysfs. So, this does indicate a bug.
> >
> > Something else that might help is knowing what the other tasks where
> > doing at the time. Thomas, do you also have the task dump? You can
> > send that to me offline if you like.
> >
>
> yup... please cc me also.
Thomas, perhaps CC Greg KH on this too, since he _is_ the maintainer for
sysfs.
-- Steve
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
