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

[Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>]

[Eric Sandeen - Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:46:15PM -0500]
| 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
| 

Hi Eric,
it seems BKL only trying to protect from concurrent discard_prealloc.
Moreover, a lot of UDF code does call iput with BKL held, so the only
solution I see is to add spinlocks to udf_drop_inode... I'm making patch
soon. Any comments?

		Cyrill

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/