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

[Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:16:16PM -0700]
[...snip...]
| 
| No, the problem is that the patch caused the kernel to take inode_lock
| within the newly-added drop_inode(), btu drop_inode() is already called
| under inode_lock.
| 
| It has nothing to do with lock_kernel() and it has nothing to do with
| sleeping.
| 

Andrew, the only call that could leading to subseq. inode_lock lock
is mark_inode_dirty() I guess (and that is snown by Eric's dump)
but as I shown you in my dbg print without SMP it's OK. So
is it SMP who lead to lock? How it depends on it? (I understand
that is a stupid question for you but if you have time explain
me this please ;)

		Cyrill

-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
    • From: Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
    • From: Cyrill Gorcunov <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
    • From: Cyrill Gorcunov <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
    • From: Cyrill Gorcunov <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
    • From: Cyrill Gorcunov <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.
• Next by Date: Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]