Patch "svcrpc: make svc_age_temp_xprts enqueue under sv_lock" has been added to the 3.8-stable tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

    svcrpc: make svc_age_temp_xprts enqueue under sv_lock

to the 3.8-stable tree which can be found at:
    http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary

The filename of the patch is:
     svcrpc-make-svc_age_temp_xprts-enqueue-under-sv_lock.patch
and it can be found in the queue-3.8 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.


>From e75bafbff2270993926abcc31358361db74a9bc2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:33:48 -0500
Subject: svcrpc: make svc_age_temp_xprts enqueue under sv_lock

From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>

commit e75bafbff2270993926abcc31358361db74a9bc2 upstream.

svc_age_temp_xprts expires xprts in a two-step process: first it takes
the sv_lock and moves the xprts to expire off their server-wide list
(sv_tempsocks or sv_permsocks) to a local list.  Then it drops the
sv_lock and enqueues and puts each one.

I see no reason for this: svc_xprt_enqueue() will take sp_lock, but the
sv_lock and sp_lock are not otherwise nested anywhere (and documentation
at the top of this file claims it's correct to nest these with sp_lock
inside.)

Tested-by: Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: PaweÅ? Sikora <pawel.sikora@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

---
 net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c |   15 ++-------------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

--- a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c
@@ -856,7 +856,6 @@ static void svc_age_temp_xprts(unsigned
 	struct svc_serv *serv = (struct svc_serv *)closure;
 	struct svc_xprt *xprt;
 	struct list_head *le, *next;
-	LIST_HEAD(to_be_aged);
 
 	dprintk("svc_age_temp_xprts\n");
 
@@ -877,25 +876,15 @@ static void svc_age_temp_xprts(unsigned
 		if (atomic_read(&xprt->xpt_ref.refcount) > 1 ||
 		    test_bit(XPT_BUSY, &xprt->xpt_flags))
 			continue;
-		svc_xprt_get(xprt);
-		list_move(le, &to_be_aged);
+		list_del_init(le);
 		set_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &xprt->xpt_flags);
 		set_bit(XPT_DETACHED, &xprt->xpt_flags);
-	}
-	spin_unlock_bh(&serv->sv_lock);
-
-	while (!list_empty(&to_be_aged)) {
-		le = to_be_aged.next;
-		/* fiddling the xpt_list node is safe 'cos we're XPT_DETACHED */
-		list_del_init(le);
-		xprt = list_entry(le, struct svc_xprt, xpt_list);
-
 		dprintk("queuing xprt %p for closing\n", xprt);
 
 		/* a thread will dequeue and close it soon */
 		svc_xprt_enqueue(xprt);
-		svc_xprt_put(xprt);
 	}
+	spin_unlock_bh(&serv->sv_lock);
 
 	mod_timer(&serv->sv_temptimer, jiffies + svc_conn_age_period * HZ);
 }


Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from bfields@xxxxxxxxxx are

queue-3.8/svcrpc-fix-rpc-server-shutdown-races.patch
queue-3.8/svcrpc-make-svc_age_temp_xprts-enqueue-under-sv_lock.patch
queue-3.8/nfsd-fix-memleak.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]