Re: [PATCH] radix_tree_tag_get() is not as safe as the docs make out
From: David Howells
Date: Tue Apr 06 2010 - 17:13:21 EST
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Looks like a reasonable patch, but the one thing you didn't say is whether
> there is any code that relies on the incorrectly documented behavior?
Sorry, yes. I've made an assumption in FS-Cache that I can rely on the result
of radix_tree_tag_get() simply by wrapping it in an rcu_read_lock()'d section.
This has proven not to be so, since the BUG_ON() at line 602 in
I was protecting set/clear/delete from each other, but not protecting get from
> How did you find this? Do we need to fix actual code too? The only user
> seems to be your fscache/page.c thing, and I'm not seeing any locking
> except for the rcu locking that is apparently not sufficient.
As mentioned above, someone reported a bug in fscache that led me to this:
I may need to fix fscache, but I wanted to see if anyone would suggest an
alternate patch that would continue to let me make a test without having to
grab the spinlock first.
I'll update the patch to reflect this, whatever the final patch ends up being.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/