On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Don Lewis wrote: > The FILE_LOCK() implementation uses "pool mutex" under the hood, which > means it should only be used as a leaf level mutex. The fdrop_locked() > code wants to be called with FILE_LOCK() held, but the fdrop_locked() > implementation calls mtx_lock(&Giant) before calling FILE_UNLOCK(). In > addition to violating the proper usage of the "pool mutex", there is > also the potential for a lock order violation. The close() > implementation grabs Giant and eventually calls fdrop(), which calls > FILE_LOCK() immediately before calling fdrop_locked(). If another > caller of fdrop_locked() calls FILE_LOCK() without grabbing Giant first, > then the lock order will be reversed when fdrop_locked() grabs Giant. > > It looks like fdrop_locked() should require that Giant be grabbed by the > caller before fdrop_locked() is called.
I've also noticed that the file descriptor lock is held over per-object calls to fo_poll(), which currently isn't a big deal for most objects, but may be in the future if we have to grab other locks in order to test the poll status inside the object. I run into this problem with the MAC work because the vnode label is protected by the vnode lock, which is a sleepable lock. We may want to change label locking in the future to avoid this, but in the mean time I get a lot of witness warnings, and using a pool mutex for the fd lock may cause lock order problems if there is more complex locking. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Associates Laboratories _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
