On 23 Oct 2012, Trond Myklebust spake thusly:
> On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 12:46 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> Looks like there's some confusion about whether nsm_client_get() returns
>> NULL or an error?
>
> nsm_client_get() looks extremely racy in the case where ln->nsm_users ==
> 0. Since we never recheck the value of ln->nsm_users after taking
> nsm_create_mutex, what is stopping 2 different threads from both setting
> ln->nsm_clnt and re-initialising ln->nsm_users?
Yep. At the worst possible time:
spin_lock(&ln->nsm_clnt_lock);
if (ln->nsm_users) {
if (--ln->nsm_users)
ln->nsm_clnt = NULL;
(1) shutdown = !ln->nsm_users;
}
spin_unlock(&ln->nsm_clnt_lock);
If a thread reinitializes nsm_users at point (1), after the assignment,
we could well end up with ln->nsm_clnt NULL and shutdown false. A bit
later, nsm_mon_unmon gets called with a NULL clnt, and boom.
This seems particularly likely if there is only one nsm_user (which is
true in my case, since I have only one active network namespace).
--
NULL && (void)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
