On 5/17/23 18:21, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 06:20:19PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> twice for the same icq. The missing rcu lock in ioc_exit_icqs() already was in >> itself a bug, and the missing flag check is another. > > spinlocks imply a rcu critical section, no need to duplicate it. Right. And I misread the code. As Yu said, given that ioc_exit_icqs() iterates the list of icqs under ioc->lock and the ioc is removed from that list under the same lock, ioc_exit_icqs() should never see an icq that went through ioc_destroy_icq()... Very weird. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
