Hello,
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 05:50:02PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 10:31 -0700, t...@kernel.org wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 05:28:11PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > It's not clear to me how the sysfs_break_active_protection()
Hello, Bart.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 05:28:11PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> It's not clear to me how the sysfs_break_active_protection() should obtain
> the struct kernfs_node pointer to the attribute. Calling that function before
> device_remove_file_self() causes a double call to
> kernfs_b
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 04:03:41AM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 06:35 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Making removal asynchronous this way sometimes causes issues because
> > whether the user sees the device released or not is racy.
>
> Hello Tejun,
>
> How could this change
Hello, Bart.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 09:57:40PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
...
> @@ -440,11 +445,21 @@ bool sysfs_remove_file_self(struct kobject *kobj, const
> struct attribute *attr)
> return false;
>
> ret = kernfs_remove_self(kn);
> + if (ret && cb) {
> +
Hello,
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 02:09:41PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 06:35 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Making removal asynchronous this way sometimes causes issues because
> > whether the user sees the device released or not is racy.
> > kernfs/sysfs have mechanisms to d
Hey,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 04:57:45PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> For synchronization primitives that wait having a stronger synchronization
> primitive nested inside a more relaxed one can lead to a deadlock. But since
> the rcu read lock primitives do not wait it could be safe to use that
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 04:18:54PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> The algorithm explained above does not depend on sched-rcu. But because
> percpu_ref_tryget_live() uses sched-rcu and because we need to add an RCU lock
> around that call we are forced to use sched-rcu. I hope this makes it
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 03:16:07PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> As explained in the comment in scsi_device_quiesce(), the effect of
> blk_set_preempt_only() must be visible for percpu_ref_tryget() calls that
> occur after the queue unfreeze triggered by scsi_device_quiesce(). Hence the
>
(cc'ing Jan)
Hello, Bart.
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:49:17PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-04-20 at 15:18 -0600, Scott Bauer wrote:
> > [ 642.638860] BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in scsi_exit_rq+0xf3/0x120 at
> > addr 8802b7fedf00
> > [ 642.639362] Read of size 1 by task rcuos
9 matches
Mail list logo
