I originally reported this to the linuxppc64-dev list, since I made it
happen on a POWER system. I'm told this might be more generic...
Anyone run into something like this?
Mark
----- Forwarded message from Mark Wong <[email protected]> -----
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:05:30 -0800
To: [email protected]
From: Mark Wong <[email protected]>
Subject: ext3 journalling BUG on full filesystem
Hi,
I'm running 2.6.11 and I'm suspecting that a full ext3 filesystem is
causing the following problem when performing some journaling
operation. Let me know if I can provide more details:
cpu 0x6: Vector: 700 (Program Check) at [c0000002e4f3f6d0]
pc: c0000000000a5fbc: .submit_bh+0x64/0x1fc
lr: c0000000000a62b4: .ll_rw_block+0x160/0x164
sp: c0000002e4f3f950
msr: 8000000000029032
current = 0xc00000038ff5c7c0
paca = 0xc000000000612000
pid = 1376, comm = kjournald
kernel BUG in submit_bh at fs/buffer.c:2706!
enter ? for help
6:mon> t
[c0000002e4f3f9f0] c0000000000a62b4 .ll_rw_block+0x160/0x164
[c0000002e4f3fab0] c000000000151ac4 .journal_commit_transaction+0xd88/0x16d4
[c0000002e4f3fe30] c000000000155590 .kjournald+0x114/0x308
[c0000002e4f3ff90] c000000000013ec0 .kernel_thread+0x4c/0x6c
Hi,
> I originally reported this to the linuxppc64-dev list, since I made it
> happen on a POWER system. I'm told this might be more generic...
>
> Anyone run into something like this?
Just in case it got lost in the rest of the xmon output... We hit a BUG():
kernel BUG in submit_bh at fs/buffer.c:2706!
Which looks like:
BUG_ON(!buffer_mapped(bh));
Backtrace:
ll_rw_block+0x160/0x164
journal_commit_transaction+0xd88/0x16d4
kjournald+0x114/0x308
kernel_thread+0x4c/0x6c
Anton
Hi Mark
Looks like you need to apply the attached patch (for the current
bk kernel or see the link below for an earlier version (which
will require some modification to remove implicit warnings, see
to extern and prototype declarations for __journal_temp_unlink_buffer
in attached patch).
Looking at Anton reply this may not be true but worth a try.
Darren
--
Stephen
I am still seeing this Oops on ext3 journal with current bk tree, this
patch:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/3/8/147
fixes the problem though required changes to remove implicit declaration
warnings updated patch attached.
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference (address 0000000000000018)
kjournald[16894]: Oops 8821862825984 [1]
Pid: 16894, CPU 0, comm: kjournald
psr : 0000101008026018 ifs : 8000000000000e21 ip : [<a0000001001ce1e0>] Not tainted
ip is at journal_commit_transaction+0x840/0x2700
unat: 0000000000000000 pfs : 0000000000000e21 rsc : 0000000000000003
rnat: 0000000000000000 bsps: 0000000000000000 pr : 0000000000001641
ldrs: 0000000000000000 ccv : 0000000000000000 fpsr: 0009804c8a70433f
csd : 0000000000000000 ssd : 0000000000000000
b0 : a0000001001ce300 b6 : a000000100633000 b7 : a00000010000a9d0
f6 : 0fffbccccccccc8c00000 f7 : 0ffea9877e00000000000
f8 : 1000ff0f0000000000000 f9 : 10002a000000000000000
f10 : 1000cc0bffffffc303400 f11 : 1003e0000000000003030
r1 : a000000100a8c830 r2 : 0000000000000286 r3 : 0000000000000000
r8 : 0000000000000001 r9 : e000070062f40d50 r10 : e000070062f40d60
r11 : 0000000000000000 r12 : e000070062f47d10 r13 : e000070062f40000
r14 : e000070062f47cb0 r15 : e00007005c2632f8 r16 : 0000000040000000
r17 : e00007005c263338 r18 : 0000000000000000 r19 : 0009804c8a70433f
r20 : 0000070062f40000 r21 : a00000010062f9d0 r22 : 0000000000000000
r23 : 0000000000000000 r24 : 0000000000000000 r25 : 0000000000000000
r26 : 0000000000000000 r27 : 0000000000000000 r28 : 0000000000005a41
r29 : 0000000000000000 r30 : 0000000000000000 r31 : e000070079ab18dc
Call Trace:
[<a00000010000fd80>] show_stack+0x80/0xa0
sp=e000070062f478d0 bsp=e000070062f41060
[<a0000001000105e0>] show_regs+0x7e0/0x800
sp=e000070062f47aa0 bsp=e000070062f41000
[<a000000100033f90>] die+0x150/0x1c0
sp=e000070062f47ab0 bsp=e000070062f40fb8
[<a000000100052d50>] ia64_do_page_fault+0x370/0x980
sp=e000070062f47ab0 bsp=e000070062f40f50
[<a00000010000b160>] ia64_leave_kernel+0x0/0x260
sp=e000070062f47b40 bsp=e000070062f40f50
[<a0000001001ce1e0>] journal_commit_transaction+0x840/0x2700
sp=e000070062f47d10 bsp=e000070062f40e48
[<a0000001001d5260>] kjournald+0x180/0x4e0
sp=e000070062f47d80 bsp=e000070062f40dd8
[<a000000100011df0>] kernel_thread_helper+0xd0/0x100
sp=e000070062f47e30 bsp=e000070062f40db0
[<a0000001000090e0>] start_kernel_thread+0x20/0x40
sp=e000070062f47e30 bsp=e000070062f40db0
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Mark Wong wrote:
> I originally reported this to the linuxppc64-dev list, since I made it
> happen on a POWER system. I'm told this might be more generic...
>
> Anyone run into something like this?
>
> Mark
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Mark Wong <[email protected]> -----
>
> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:05:30 -0800
> To: [email protected]
> From: Mark Wong <[email protected]>
> Subject: ext3 journalling BUG on full filesystem
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm running 2.6.11 and I'm suspecting that a full ext3 filesystem is
> causing the following problem when performing some journaling
> operation. Let me know if I can provide more details:
>
> cpu 0x6: Vector: 700 (Program Check) at [c0000002e4f3f6d0]
> pc: c0000000000a5fbc: .submit_bh+0x64/0x1fc
> lr: c0000000000a62b4: .ll_rw_block+0x160/0x164
> sp: c0000002e4f3f950
> msr: 8000000000029032
> current = 0xc00000038ff5c7c0
> paca = 0xc000000000612000
> pid = 1376, comm = kjournald
> kernel BUG in submit_bh at fs/buffer.c:2706!
> enter ? for help
> 6:mon> t
> [c0000002e4f3f9f0] c0000000000a62b4 .ll_rw_block+0x160/0x164
> [c0000002e4f3fab0] c000000000151ac4 .journal_commit_transaction+0xd88/0x16d4
> [c0000002e4f3fe30] c000000000155590 .kjournald+0x114/0x308
> [c0000002e4f3ff90] c000000000013ec0 .kernel_thread+0x4c/0x6c
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--------------------------------------------------
Darren Williams <dsw AT gelato.unsw.edu.au>
Gelato@UNSW <http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au>
--------------------------------------------------
Mark Wong wrote:
> I originally reported this to the linuxppc64-dev list, since I made it
> happen on a POWER system. I'm told this might be more generic...
>
> Anyone run into something like this?
>
> Mark
If i'm not wrong I think I have had something around the same place "ext3
journalling":
1)
The kjournald daemon hits a bugcheck:
Assertion failure in journal_commit_transaction() at fs/jbd/commit.c:760:
"jh->b_next_transaction == ((void *)0)"
kernel BUG at fs/jbd/commit.c:760! (fs/jbd/transaction.c, 954):
journal_dirty_data: jh: e0000023ee0f9a58, tid:205049
2)
reading your email I decide to start a test and get this:
(fs/jbd/transaction.c, 954): journal_dirty_data: jh: e0000023ee0f9a58, tid:205049
kernel BUG at kernel/timer.c:416!
mkdir09[30886]: bugcheck! 0 [2]
/* Linux version 2.6.10 with CONFIG_JBD_DEBUG enable */
hope that it can help,
Jacky
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Mark Wong <[email protected]> -----
>
> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:05:30 -0800
> To: [email protected]
> From: Mark Wong <[email protected]>
> Subject: ext3 journalling BUG on full filesystem
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm running 2.6.11 and I'm suspecting that a full ext3 filesystem is
> causing the following problem when performing some journaling
> operation. Let me know if I can provide more details:
>
> cpu 0x6: Vector: 700 (Program Check) at [c0000002e4f3f6d0]
> pc: c0000000000a5fbc: .submit_bh+0x64/0x1fc
> lr: c0000000000a62b4: .ll_rw_block+0x160/0x164
> sp: c0000002e4f3f950
> msr: 8000000000029032
> current = 0xc00000038ff5c7c0
> paca = 0xc000000000612000
> pid = 1376, comm = kjournald
> kernel BUG in submit_bh at fs/buffer.c:2706!
> enter ? for help
> 6:mon> t
> [c0000002e4f3f9f0] c0000000000a62b4 .ll_rw_block+0x160/0x164
> [c0000002e4f3fab0] c000000000151ac4 .journal_commit_transaction+0xd88/0x16d4
> [c0000002e4f3fe30] c000000000155590 .kjournald+0x114/0x308
> [c0000002e4f3ff90] c000000000013ec0 .kernel_thread+0x4c/0x6c
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
Jacky Malcles B1-403 Email : [email protected]
Bull SA, 1 rue de Provence, B.P 208, 38432 Echirolles CEDEX, FRANCE
Tel : 04.76.29.73.14
Hi,
> Looks like you need to apply the attached patch (for the current
> bk kernel or see the link below for an earlier version (which
> will require some modification to remove implicit warnings, see
> to extern and prototype declarations for __journal_temp_unlink_buffer
> in attached patch).
Actually the patch you atached showed in the end as not covering all
the cases and so Stephen agreed to stay with the first try (attached)
which should cover all known cases (although it's not so nice).
Honza
>
> Looking at Anton reply this may not be true but worth a try.
>
> Darren
>
> --
>
> Stephen
> I am still seeing this Oops on ext3 journal with current bk tree, this
> patch:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/3/8/147
>
> fixes the problem though required changes to remove implicit declaration
> warnings updated patch attached.
>
> Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference (address 0000000000000018)
> kjournald[16894]: Oops 8821862825984 [1]
>
> Pid: 16894, CPU 0, comm: kjournald
> psr : 0000101008026018 ifs : 8000000000000e21 ip : [<a0000001001ce1e0>] Not tainted
> ip is at journal_commit_transaction+0x840/0x2700
> unat: 0000000000000000 pfs : 0000000000000e21 rsc : 0000000000000003
> rnat: 0000000000000000 bsps: 0000000000000000 pr : 0000000000001641
> ldrs: 0000000000000000 ccv : 0000000000000000 fpsr: 0009804c8a70433f
> csd : 0000000000000000 ssd : 0000000000000000
> b0 : a0000001001ce300 b6 : a000000100633000 b7 : a00000010000a9d0
> f6 : 0fffbccccccccc8c00000 f7 : 0ffea9877e00000000000
> f8 : 1000ff0f0000000000000 f9 : 10002a000000000000000
> f10 : 1000cc0bffffffc303400 f11 : 1003e0000000000003030
> r1 : a000000100a8c830 r2 : 0000000000000286 r3 : 0000000000000000
> r8 : 0000000000000001 r9 : e000070062f40d50 r10 : e000070062f40d60
> r11 : 0000000000000000 r12 : e000070062f47d10 r13 : e000070062f40000
> r14 : e000070062f47cb0 r15 : e00007005c2632f8 r16 : 0000000040000000
> r17 : e00007005c263338 r18 : 0000000000000000 r19 : 0009804c8a70433f
> r20 : 0000070062f40000 r21 : a00000010062f9d0 r22 : 0000000000000000
> r23 : 0000000000000000 r24 : 0000000000000000 r25 : 0000000000000000
> r26 : 0000000000000000 r27 : 0000000000000000 r28 : 0000000000005a41
> r29 : 0000000000000000 r30 : 0000000000000000 r31 : e000070079ab18dc
>
> Call Trace:
> [<a00000010000fd80>] show_stack+0x80/0xa0
> sp=e000070062f478d0 bsp=e000070062f41060
> [<a0000001000105e0>] show_regs+0x7e0/0x800
> sp=e000070062f47aa0 bsp=e000070062f41000
> [<a000000100033f90>] die+0x150/0x1c0
> sp=e000070062f47ab0 bsp=e000070062f40fb8
> [<a000000100052d50>] ia64_do_page_fault+0x370/0x980
> sp=e000070062f47ab0 bsp=e000070062f40f50
> [<a00000010000b160>] ia64_leave_kernel+0x0/0x260
> sp=e000070062f47b40 bsp=e000070062f40f50
> [<a0000001001ce1e0>] journal_commit_transaction+0x840/0x2700
> sp=e000070062f47d10 bsp=e000070062f40e48
> [<a0000001001d5260>] kjournald+0x180/0x4e0
> sp=e000070062f47d80 bsp=e000070062f40dd8
> [<a000000100011df0>] kernel_thread_helper+0xd0/0x100
> sp=e000070062f47e30 bsp=e000070062f40db0
> [<a0000001000090e0>] start_kernel_thread+0x20/0x40
> sp=e000070062f47e30 bsp=e000070062f40db0
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Mark Wong wrote:
>
> > I originally reported this to the linuxppc64-dev list, since I made it
> > happen on a POWER system. I'm told this might be more generic...
> >
> > Anyone run into something like this?
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > ----- Forwarded message from Mark Wong <[email protected]> -----
> >
> > Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:05:30 -0800
> > To: [email protected]
> > From: Mark Wong <[email protected]>
> > Subject: ext3 journalling BUG on full filesystem
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm running 2.6.11 and I'm suspecting that a full ext3 filesystem is
> > causing the following problem when performing some journaling
> > operation. Let me know if I can provide more details:
> >
> > cpu 0x6: Vector: 700 (Program Check) at [c0000002e4f3f6d0]
> > pc: c0000000000a5fbc: .submit_bh+0x64/0x1fc
> > lr: c0000000000a62b4: .ll_rw_block+0x160/0x164
> > sp: c0000002e4f3f950
> > msr: 8000000000029032
> > current = 0xc00000038ff5c7c0
> > paca = 0xc000000000612000
> > pid = 1376, comm = kjournald
> > kernel BUG in submit_bh at fs/buffer.c:2706!
> > enter ? for help
> > 6:mon> t
> > [c0000002e4f3f9f0] c0000000000a62b4 .ll_rw_block+0x160/0x164
> > [c0000002e4f3fab0] c000000000151ac4 .journal_commit_transaction+0xd88/0x16d4
> > [c0000002e4f3fe30] c000000000155590 .kjournald+0x114/0x308
> > [c0000002e4f3ff90] c000000000013ec0 .kernel_thread+0x4c/0x6c
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to [email protected]
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> --------------------------------------------------
> Darren Williams <dsw AT gelato.unsw.edu.au>
> Gelato@UNSW <http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Fix destruction of in-use journal_head
>
> journal_put_journal_head() can destroy a journal_head at any time as
> long as the jh's b_jcount is zero and b_transaction is NULL. It has no
> locking protection against the rest of the journaling code, as the lock
> it uses to protect b_jcount and bh->b_private is not used elsewhere in
> jbd.
>
> However, there are small windows where b_transaction is getting set
> temporarily to NULL during normal operations; typically this is
> happening in
>
> __journal_unfile_buffer(jh);
> __journal_file_buffer(jh, ...);
>
> call pairs, as __journal_unfile_buffer() will set b_transaction to NULL
> and __journal_file_buffer() re-sets it afterwards. A truncate running
> in parallel can lead to journal_unmap_buffer() destroying the jh if it
> occurs between these two calls.
>
> Fix this by adding a variant of __journal_unfile_buffer() which is only
> used for these temporary jh unlinks, and which leaves the b_transaction
> field intact so that we never leave a window open where b_transaction is
> NULL.
>
> Additionally, trap this error if it does occur, by checking against
> jh->b_jlist being non-null when we destroy a jh.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Tweedie <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Darren Williams <[email protected]>
>
> Index: linux-2.5-import/fs/jbd/commit.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.5-import.orig/fs/jbd/commit.c 2005-03-24 08:47:00.000000000 +1100
> +++ linux-2.5-import/fs/jbd/commit.c 2005-03-24 09:07:34.000000000 +1100
> @@ -166,6 +166,7 @@
> * The primary function for committing a transaction to the log. This
> * function is called by the journal thread to begin a complete commit.
> */
> +extern void __journal_temp_unlink_buffer(struct journal_head *jh);
> void journal_commit_transaction(journal_t *journal)
> {
> transaction_t *commit_transaction;
> @@ -341,7 +342,7 @@
> BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "locked");
> if (!inverted_lock(journal, bh))
> goto write_out_data;
> - __journal_unfile_buffer(jh);
> + __journal_temp_unlink_buffer(jh);
> __journal_file_buffer(jh, commit_transaction,
> BJ_Locked);
> jbd_unlock_bh_state(bh);
> Index: linux-2.5-import/fs/jbd/journal.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.5-import.orig/fs/jbd/journal.c 2005-03-24 08:47:00.000000000 +1100
> +++ linux-2.5-import/fs/jbd/journal.c 2005-03-24 08:47:00.000000000 +1100
> @@ -1803,6 +1803,7 @@
> if (jh->b_transaction == NULL &&
> jh->b_next_transaction == NULL &&
> jh->b_cp_transaction == NULL) {
> + J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_jlist == BJ_None);
> J_ASSERT_BH(bh, buffer_jbd(bh));
> J_ASSERT_BH(bh, jh2bh(jh) == bh);
> BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "remove journal_head");
> Index: linux-2.5-import/fs/jbd/transaction.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.5-import.orig/fs/jbd/transaction.c 2005-03-24 08:47:00.000000000 +1100
> +++ linux-2.5-import/fs/jbd/transaction.c 2005-03-24 09:07:38.000000000 +1100
> @@ -922,6 +922,8 @@
> * journal_dirty_data() can be called via page_launder->ext3_writepage
> * by kswapd.
> */
> +void __journal_temp_unlink_buffer(struct journal_head *jh);
> +
> int journal_dirty_data(handle_t *handle, struct buffer_head *bh)
> {
> journal_t *journal = handle->h_transaction->t_journal;
> @@ -1031,7 +1033,12 @@
> /* journal_clean_data_list() may have got there first */
> if (jh->b_transaction != NULL) {
> JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "unfile from commit");
> - __journal_unfile_buffer(jh);
> + __journal_temp_unlink_buffer(jh);
> + /* It still points to the committing
> + * transaction; move it to this one so
> + * that the refile assert checks are
> + * happy. */
> + jh->b_transaction = handle->h_transaction;
> }
> /* The buffer will be refiled below */
>
> @@ -1045,7 +1052,8 @@
> if (jh->b_jlist != BJ_SyncData && jh->b_jlist != BJ_Locked) {
> JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "not on correct data list: unfile");
> J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_jlist != BJ_Shadow);
> - __journal_unfile_buffer(jh);
> + __journal_temp_unlink_buffer(jh);
> + jh->b_transaction = handle->h_transaction;
> JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "file as data");
> __journal_file_buffer(jh, handle->h_transaction,
> BJ_SyncData);
> @@ -1225,7 +1233,6 @@
>
> JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "belongs to current transaction: unfile");
>
> - __journal_unfile_buffer(jh);
> drop_reserve = 1;
>
> /*
> @@ -1241,8 +1248,10 @@
> */
>
> if (jh->b_cp_transaction) {
> + __journal_temp_unlink_buffer(jh);
> __journal_file_buffer(jh, transaction, BJ_Forget);
> } else {
> + __journal_unfile_buffer(jh);
> journal_remove_journal_head(bh);
> __brelse(bh);
> if (!buffer_jbd(bh)) {
> @@ -1468,7 +1477,7 @@
> *
> * Called under j_list_lock. The journal may not be locked.
> */
> -void __journal_unfile_buffer(struct journal_head *jh)
> +void __journal_temp_unlink_buffer(struct journal_head *jh)
> {
> struct journal_head **list = NULL;
> transaction_t *transaction;
> @@ -1485,7 +1494,7 @@
>
> switch (jh->b_jlist) {
> case BJ_None:
> - goto out;
> + return;
> case BJ_SyncData:
> list = &transaction->t_sync_datalist;
> break;
> @@ -1518,7 +1527,11 @@
> jh->b_jlist = BJ_None;
> if (test_clear_buffer_jbddirty(bh))
> mark_buffer_dirty(bh); /* Expose it to the VM */
> -out:
> +}
> +
> +void __journal_unfile_buffer(struct journal_head *jh)
> +{
> + __journal_temp_unlink_buffer(jh);
> jh->b_transaction = NULL;
> }
>
> @@ -1928,7 +1941,7 @@
> }
>
> if (jh->b_transaction)
> - __journal_unfile_buffer(jh);
> + __journal_temp_unlink_buffer(jh);
> jh->b_transaction = transaction;
>
> switch (jlist) {
> @@ -2011,7 +2024,7 @@
> */
>
> was_dirty = test_clear_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
> - __journal_unfile_buffer(jh);
> + __journal_temp_unlink_buffer(jh);
> jh->b_transaction = jh->b_next_transaction;
> jh->b_next_transaction = NULL;
> __journal_file_buffer(jh, jh->b_transaction, BJ_Metadata);
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SuSE CR Labs
Hi,
On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 10:39, Jan Kara wrote:
> Actually the patch you atached showed in the end as not covering all
> the cases and so Stephen agreed to stay with the first try (attached)
> which should cover all known cases (although it's not so nice).
Right. The later patch is getting reworked into a proper locking
overhaul for the journal_put_journal_head() code. The earlier one (that
Jan attached) is the one that's appropriate in the mean time; it covers
all of the holes we know about for sure and has proven robust in
testing.
--Stephen
* Stephen C. Tweedie ([email protected]) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 10:39, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > Actually the patch you atached showed in the end as not covering all
> > the cases and so Stephen agreed to stay with the first try (attached)
> > which should cover all known cases (although it's not so nice).
>
> Right. The later patch is getting reworked into a proper locking
> overhaul for the journal_put_journal_head() code. The earlier one (that
> Jan attached) is the one that's appropriate in the mean time; it covers
> all of the holes we know about for sure and has proven robust in
> testing.
OK, good to know. When I last checked you were working on a higher risk
yet more complete fix, and I thought we'd wait for that one to stabilize.
Looks like the one Jan attached is the better -stable candidate?
thanks,
-chris
Hi,
On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 19:38, Chris Wright wrote:
> OK, good to know. When I last checked you were working on a higher risk
> yet more complete fix, and I thought we'd wait for that one to stabilize.
> Looks like the one Jan attached is the better -stable candidate?
Definitely; it's the one I gave akpm. The lock reworking is going to
remove one layer of locks, so it's worthwhile from that point of view;
but it's longer-term, and I don't know for sure of any paths to chaos
with that simpler journal_unmap_buffer() fix in place. (It's just very
hard to _prove_ all cases are correct without the locking rework.)
--Stephen
* Stephen C. Tweedie ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 19:38, Chris Wright wrote:
>
> > OK, good to know. When I last checked you were working on a higher risk
> > yet more complete fix, and I thought we'd wait for that one to stabilize.
> > Looks like the one Jan attached is the better -stable candidate?
>
> Definitely; it's the one I gave akpm. The lock reworking is going to
> remove one layer of locks, so it's worthwhile from that point of view;
> but it's longer-term, and I don't know for sure of any paths to chaos
> with that simpler journal_unmap_buffer() fix in place. (It's just very
> hard to _prove_ all cases are correct without the locking rework.)
Great, I'll add to -stable queue. Thanks Stephen.
-chris
--
Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net