Re: What protection does sysfs_readdir have with SMP/Preemption?
From: Steven Rostedt (rostedt_at_goodmis.org)
Date: 11/23/05
- Previous message: Ashutosh Naik: "Over-riding symbols in the Kernel causes Kernel Panic"
- In reply to: Maneesh Soni: "Re: What protection does sysfs_readdir have with SMP/Preemption?"
- Next in thread: Steven Rostedt: "Re: What protection does sysfs_readdir have with SMP/Preemption?"
- Reply: Steven Rostedt: "Re: What protection does sysfs_readdir have with SMP/Preemption?"
- Reply: Maneesh Soni: "Re: What protection does sysfs_readdir have with SMP/Preemption?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: maneesh@in.ibm.com Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:15:44 -0500
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 19:28 +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote:
>
> hmm looks like we got some situation which is not desirable and could lead
> to bogus sysfs_dirent in the parent list. It may not be the exact problem
> in this case though, but needs fixing IMO.
>
> After sysfs_make_dirent(), the ref count for sysfs dirent will be 2.
> (one from allocation, and after linking the new dentry to it). On
> error from sysfs_create(), we do sysfs_put() once, decrementing the
> ref count to 1. And again when the new dentry for which we couldn't
> allocate the d_inode, is d_drop()'ed. In sysfs_d_iput() we again
> sysfs_put(), and decrement the sysfs dirent's ref count to 0, which will
> be the final sysfs_put(), and it will free the sysfs_dirent but never
> unlinks it from the parent list. So, parent list could still will having
> links to the freed sysfs_dirent in its s_children list.
>
> so basically list_del_init(&sd->s_sibling) should be done in error path
> in create_dir().
>
> Could you also put the appended patch in your trial runs..
>
I'm already playing around with this. You might want this patch instead.
I noticed that if sysfs_make_dirent fails to allocate the sd, then a
null will be passed to sysfs_put.
But this is not the end of the problems. I'll follow up on that comment
right after this.
-- Steve
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Index: linux-2.6.15-rc2-git2/fs/sysfs/dir.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.15-rc2-git2.orig/fs/sysfs/dir.c 2005-11-23 08:40:33.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.15-rc2-git2/fs/sysfs/dir.c 2005-11-23 08:52:57.000000000 -0500
@@ -112,7 +112,11 @@
}
}
if (error && (error != -EEXIST)) {
- sysfs_put((*d)->d_fsdata);
+ struct sysfs_dirent *sd = (*d)->d_fsdata;
+ if (sd) {
+ list_del_init(&sd->s_sibling);
+ sysfs_put(sd);
+ }
d_drop(*d);
}
dput(*d);
-
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/
- Previous message: Ashutosh Naik: "Over-riding symbols in the Kernel causes Kernel Panic"
- In reply to: Maneesh Soni: "Re: What protection does sysfs_readdir have with SMP/Preemption?"
- Next in thread: Steven Rostedt: "Re: What protection does sysfs_readdir have with SMP/Preemption?"
- Reply: Steven Rostedt: "Re: What protection does sysfs_readdir have with SMP/Preemption?"
- Reply: Maneesh Soni: "Re: What protection does sysfs_readdir have with SMP/Preemption?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
