On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 01:27:59PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Please also take a look at Jan's recent > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg61738.html and have a > think about how this plays with your patchset. I can't think of any possible interactions - none of my aio stuff messes with the way the fput() happens; the aio code does call fput() when the kiocb is freed and my patches do touch _that_ code but none of the behaviour there changes. Might be worth documenting this though, I can't think of any reason it'd be obvious looking at the aio code that the fput() has to happen after aio_complete(). As with the bugs I just sent you patches for it's not terribly clear who owns what in the kiocb when. Reading those patches though - the main change is to call inode_dio_done() before calling aio_complete(). All inode_dio_done() does though is issue a wakeup - to whatever called inode_dio_wait(). That means whatever called inode_dio_wait() needs its own ref on the inode, and from a cursory glance at the code it is _not_ at all clear to me that's the case - if inode_dio_wait() is merely finishing things for that specific IO that need to be done in process context, I can easily imagine it not being the case. Assuming whatever does call inode_dio_wait() does have its own ref, there was only a real use after free when nothing was waiting on the inode. Similarly for the ext4 code to write unwritten extents - and having seen and helped chase a bug in that code before, that code _definitely_ needs auditing. -- 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
