Re: Linux 2.6.10-rc2

From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Thu Nov 18 2004 - 13:05:46 EST




On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Vladimir B. Savkin wrote:
>
> Please accept this fix:
>
> [PATCH] fix posix_locks_deadlock().
>
> "blocked_list" may contain both leases and flock locks. Since the latter in
> particular do not initialize the fl_owner field, we have to beware not to
> call posix_same_owner() on them.

Nope. It got fixed differently: by only adding POSIX locks to the list.
See locks_insert_block(). Since a non-posix lock cannot be blocked by a
POSIX lock, the "if (IS_POSIX(blocker))" test should make sure we're
always proper.

At least that's Willy claims. If you think he's wrong, holler.

Willy Cc'd, once more.

Linus
----
> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> locks.c | 7 +++----
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.9-rc2-up/fs/locks.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.9-rc2-up.orig/fs/locks.c 2004-09-19 13:55:33.680258334 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.9-rc2-up/fs/locks.c 2004-09-19 15:37:32.595634679 -0700
> @@ -634,14 +634,13 @@
> int posix_locks_deadlock(struct file_lock *caller_fl,
> struct file_lock *block_fl)
> {
> - struct list_head *tmp;
> + struct file_lock *fl;
>
> next_task:
> if (posix_same_owner(caller_fl, block_fl))
> return 1;
> - list_for_each(tmp, &blocked_list) {
> - struct file_lock *fl = list_entry(tmp, struct file_lock, fl_link);
> - if (posix_same_owner(fl, block_fl)) {
> + list_for_each_entry(fl, &blocked_list, fl_link) {
> + if (IS_POSIX(fl) && posix_same_owner(fl, block_fl)) {
> fl = fl->fl_next;
> block_fl = fl;
> goto next_task;
>
> ~
> :wq
> With best regards,
> Vladimir Savkin.
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/