On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> rcu_dereference() should be used in sections protected by rcu_read_lock.
>
> For writers, holding some kind of mutex or lock,
> rcu_dereference_protected() is the way to go, adding explicit lockdep
> bits.
>
> In __unbind(), although there is no mutex or lock held, we are about
> to free the mapped device, so can use the constant '1' instead of a
> lockdep_is_held()
That isn't true. dm_hash_remove_all() -- which calls dm_destroy --
holds _hash_lock. Why leave __unbind() brittle in the face of future
DM locking changes?
> Reported-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: 33423974bfc1 ("dm: Use rcu_dereference() for accessing rcu pointer")
> Cc: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi Eric,
I'll pick this up once I get clarification for why your __unbind
change is safe.. but it really would've helped if you cc'd
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx or myself directly (not a single person that you
cc'd actively maintains DM).
Hopefully these DM rcu "fixes" are finished after this.
Thanks,
Mike
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
