On Tue, 31 May 2011, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:33:18PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > On Tue, 31 May 2011, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > > > > We need to take reference to the s_li_request after we take a mutex, > > > because it might be freed since then, hence result in accessing old > > > already freed memory. Also we should protect the whole > > > ext4_remove_li_request() because ext4_li_info might be in the process of > > > being freed in ext4_lazyinit_thread(). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <[email protected]> > > > Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > fs/ext4/super.c | 10 ++++++---- > > > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c > > > index fd51a4a..ed5e80e 100644 > > > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c > > > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c > > > @@ -2735,14 +2735,16 @@ static void ext4_remove_li_request(struct > > > ext4_li_request *elr) > > > > > > static void ext4_unregister_li_request(struct super_block *sb) > > > { > > > - struct ext4_li_request *elr = EXT4_SB(sb)->s_li_request; > > > - > > > - if (!ext4_li_info) > > > + mutex_lock(&ext4_li_mtx); > > > + if (!ext4_li_info) { > > > + mutex_unlock(&ext4_li_mtx); > > > return; > > > + } > > > > > > mutex_lock(&ext4_li_info->li_list_mtx); > > > - ext4_remove_li_request(elr); > > > + ext4_remove_li_request(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_li_request); > > > mutex_unlock(&ext4_li_info->li_list_mtx); > > > + mutex_unlock(&ext4_li_mtx); > > > } > > > > > > static struct task_struct *ext4_lazyinit_task; > > > > > > > > > This is upstream commit 1bb933fb1fa8e4cb337a0d5dfd2ff4c0dc2073e8 > > Ok, and what stable kernel trees do you want to see it applied to? > > thanks, > > greg k-h
Oh, sorry. I would like it to be applied to stable 2.6.37, 2.6.38, 2.6.39. Thanks! -Lukas _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
