Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:

Eric, could you please try the following:

1) declare the spinlock in the top of inode.c as

	DEFINE_SPINLOCK(udf_drop_lock);

2) replace in udf_drop_inode()

	kernel_lock -> spin_lock(&udf_drop_lock);
	kernel_unlock -> spin_unlock(&udf_drop_lock);

I'm not sure if it help but you may try ;)

		Cyrill


I'm sure it'll avoid the deadlock but....

Any sense of what the BKL is actually trying to protect in this case?

Is it really only trying to prevent concurrent prealloc-discarders, or is there more?

-Eric
-
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]
  Powered by Linux