On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:18:56 +0900 Minchan Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dan and Sergey reported that there is a racy between reset and
> flushing of pending work so that it could make oops by freeing
> zram->meta in reset while zram_slot_free can access zram->meta
> if new request is adding during the race window.
>
> This patch moves flush after taking init_lock so it prevents
> new request so that it closes the race.
>
> ..
>
> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> @@ -553,14 +553,14 @@ static void zram_reset_device(struct zram *zram, bool
> reset_capacity)
> size_t index;
> struct zram_meta *meta;
>
> - flush_work(&zram->free_work);
> -
> down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> if (!zram->init_done) {
> up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> return;
> }
>
> + flush_work(&zram->free_work);
> +
> meta = zram->meta;
> zram->init_done = 0;
This makes zram.lock nest inside zram.init_lock, which afaict is new
behaviour.
That all seems OK and logical - has it been well tested with lockdep?
--
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/
