Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755398AbYFJT6q (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:58:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752568AbYFJT6g (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:58:36 -0400 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.10.15]:41468 "EHLO pat.uio.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752314AbYFJT6f (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:58:35 -0400 Subject: Re: [2.6.26-rc4] mount.nfsv4/memory poisoning issues... From: Trond Myklebust To: Jeff Layton Cc: Daniel J Blueman , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, Linux Kernel In-Reply-To: <20080610151357.150b6f69@tleilax.poochiereds.net> References: <6278d2220806041633n3bfe3dd2ke9602697697228b@mail.gmail.com> <20080604203504.62730951@tleilax.poochiereds.net> <1213124088.20459.16.camel@localhost> <20080610151357.150b6f69@tleilax.poochiereds.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:58:29 -0400 Message-Id: <1213127909.20459.48.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UiO-Resend: resent X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO) X-UiO-Scanned: 6EC1795B4CB9D15BA4144B62A427EAEF7DF3FE2C X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 129.240.10.9 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 200 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 669 total 8862572 max/h 8345 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1297 Lines: 38 On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 15:13 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > I think you're basically correct, but it looks to me like the > nfs_callback_mutex actually protects nfs_callback_info.task as well. > > If we're starting the thread, then we can't call kthread_stop on it > until we release the mutex. So the thread can't exit until we release > the mutex, and we can be guaranteed that this: > > nfs_callback_info.task = NULL; > > ...can't happen until after kthread_run returns and nfs_callback_up > sets it. > > If that's right, then maybe this (untested, RFC only) patch would make sense? Hmm... I suppose that is correct, but what if nfs_alloc_client() does nfs_callback_up(); nfs_callback_down(); AFAICS, if nfs_callback_down() gets called before the kthread() function gets scheduled back in, then you can get left with a value of nfs_callback_info.task != NULL, since nfs_callback_svc() will never be called. Wouldn't it therefore make more sense to clear nfs_callback_info.task in nfs_callback_down()? Cheers Trond -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/