James Smart <James.Smart@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I don't believe this is a valid fix. This is yet another case > of the reuse-after-free issues on sdevs. The real issue is the > deleted sdev isn't truly getting deleted due to references, and > we're deadlocked trying to allocate a new one while the old one > is outstanding. This fix just jumps over things. You're actually > using a partially torn down sdev that, if the refcounts ever > decremented, would be zapped - and you would be in a bunch of trouble. I see. Can you explain more about reuse-after-free issue on sdevs? Is there any test case or any info? Or is there any plan to fix it? -- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
