Hi Lino, Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@xxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 04:38:22PM -0400, Eric Paris wrote: ... >> >> Looks at aweful lot like the problem from: >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg46101.html >> > > I tried to reproduce this bug with your test program, but without success. > However, if I understand correctly, this occurs since we dont hold any locks when > we call iput() in mark_destroy(), right? > With the patches you tested, iput() is also not called within any lock, since the > groups mark_mutex is released temporarily before iput() is called. This is, since > the original codes behaviour is similar. > However since we now have a mutex as the biggest lock, we can do what you > suggested (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg46107.html) and > call iput() with the mutex held to avoid the race. > The patch below implements this. It uses nested locking to avoid deadlock in case > we do the final iput() on an inode which still holds marks and thus would take > the mutex again when calling fsnotify_inode_delete() in destroy_inode(). I know it's been a while since you posted this series, but I was wondering if there has been any progress. Is there anyone working on this, or is it stalled? Cheers, -- Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
