On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:20:13AM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 02:38:39PM +0100, Jan H. Schönherr wrote:
> > The function follow_pte_pmd() can theoretically return after having
> > acquired a PMD lock, even when DAX was not compiled with
> > CONFIG_FS_DAX_PMD.
> >
> > Release the PMD lock unconditionally.
> >
> > Fixes: f729c8c9b24f ("dax: wrprotect pmd_t in dax_mapping_entry_mkclean")
> > Signed-off-by: Jan H. Schönherr <jschoenh@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/dax.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c
> > index 9598159..c2ebf10 100644
> > --- a/fs/dax.c
> > +++ b/fs/dax.c
> > @@ -636,8 +636,8 @@ static void dax_mapping_entry_mkclean(struct address_space *mapping,
> > pmd = pmd_mkclean(pmd);
> > set_pmd_at(vma->vm_mm, address, pmdp, pmd);
> > unlock_pmd:
> > - spin_unlock(ptl);
> > #endif
> > + spin_unlock(ptl);
> > } else {
> > if (pfn != pte_pfn(*ptep))
> > goto unlock_pte;
>
> Sure, this seems fine to me. This seems simple and correct - you're right
> that we aren't taking the PTL on the PMD conditionally based on whether
> CONFIG_DAX_PMD is defined, so it doesn't make sense to release it
> conditionally. I think if we ever hit this lock imbalance we're totally
> insane anyway, but it the fix is correct and doesn't mess with our code flow.
>
> You can add:
> Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Ah, I just realized that this patch didn't CC Andrew, and he's the one that
usually takes our DAX patches.
Andrew, can you pick this up? Here's the fsdevel patchwork:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10173255/
Thanks,
- Ross
