On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:48:38PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 14:27 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:24:26PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 14:11 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > > From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > The sm_count is decremented to zero but left on the nsm_handles list. > > > > So in the space between decrementing sm_count and acquiring nsm_mutex, > > > > it is possible for another task to find this nsm_handle, increment the > > > > use count and then enter nsm_release itself. > > > > > > > > Thus there's nothing to prevent the nsm being freed before we acquire > > > > nsm_mutex here. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > --- > > > > fs/lockd/host.c | 10 ++++------ > > > > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > Am I missing something here?--b. > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/lockd/host.c b/fs/lockd/host.c > > > > index c3f1194..960911c 100644 > > > > --- a/fs/lockd/host.c > > > > +++ b/fs/lockd/host.c ... > > If you've got any other suggestions while I'm in the general area, I'm > > all ears. > > Just the usual plea to replace the host->h_server flag with 2 separate > lists: one list of client nlm_hosts, and one list of server > nlm_hosts :-)
OK, I'm looking at that. > ...Oh and a minor optimisation: If we're using a loopback mount, I don't > think we'll ever need to monitor 'localhost' :-) I assumed one of the only uses for loopback mounts was for testing and development, in which case it's better to keep the loopback behavior similar to non-loopback behavior, even if it's a little silly. No? --b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
