Re: [PATCH] mm: add missing mutex lock arround notify_change

[Al Viro]

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 02:03:40AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:

> OK, I'm definitely missing something.  The very first thing
> xfs_file_aio_write_checks() does is
>         xfs_rw_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> which really makes me wonder how the hell does that manage to avoid an
> instant deadlock in case of call via xfs_file_buffered_aio_write()
> where we have:
>         struct address_space    *mapping = file->f_mapping;
>         struct inode            *inode = mapping->host;
>         struct xfs_inode        *ip = XFS_I(inode);
>         *iolock = XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL;
>         xfs_rw_ilock(ip, *iolock);
>         ret = xfs_file_aio_write_checks(file, &pos, &count, new_size, iolock);
> which leads to
>         struct inode            *inode = file->f_mapping->host;
>         struct xfs_inode        *ip = XFS_I(inode);
> (IOW, inode and ip are the same as in the caller) followed by
>         xfs_rw_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> and with both xfs_rw_ilock() calls turning into
> 	mutex_lock(&VFS_I(ip)->i_mutex);
>         xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> we ought to deadlock on that i_mutex.  What am I missing and how do we manage
> to survive that?

Arrrgh...  OK, I see...  What I missed is that XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL is not
XFS_ILOCK_EXCL.  Nice naming, that...
--
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/