On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 04:48:18 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 06:36:19AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > The argument to locks_unlink_lock can't be just any pointer to a > > pointer. It must be a pointer to the fl_next field in the previous > > lock in the list. > > Looks good, > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > This might explain some memory corruption I saw in the lease code while > trying out a new creative (ab-)user of the lease code.. > Hmmm maybe. I'd certainly test it out if you have a reproducer... That locks_unlink_lock should only get called under some very strange (and rare) circumstances. It was added in commit 24cbe7845ea5 which describes the potential race there. I suppose it's possible but I had always considered that race to be more in the theoretical category than anything likely to happen under normal circumstances. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
