Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
bcache: Fix a dumb race
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
In the far-too-complicated closure code - closures can have destructors,
for probably dubious reasons; they get run after the closure is no
longer waiting on anything but before dropping the parent ref, intended
just for freeing whatever memory the closure is embedded in.

Trouble is, when remaining goes to 0 and we've got nothing more to run -
we also have to unlock the closure, setting remaining to -1. If there's
a destructor, that unlock isn't doing anything - nobody could be trying
to lock it if we're about to free it - but if the unlock _is needed...
that check for a destructor was racy. Argh.

Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kmo@daterainc.com>
Cc: linux-stable <stable@vger.kernel.org> # >= v3.10
  • Loading branch information
Kent Overstreet committed Jul 12, 2013
1 parent 8e51e41 commit 6aa8f1a
Showing 1 changed file with 4 additions and 2 deletions.
6 changes: 4 additions & 2 deletions drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -66,16 +66,18 @@ static inline void closure_put_after_sub(struct closure *cl, int flags)
} else {
struct closure *parent = cl->parent;
struct closure_waitlist *wait = closure_waitlist(cl);
closure_fn *destructor = cl->fn;

closure_debug_destroy(cl);

smp_mb();
atomic_set(&cl->remaining, -1);

if (wait)
closure_wake_up(wait);

if (cl->fn)
cl->fn(cl);
if (destructor)
destructor(cl);

if (parent)
closure_put(parent);
Expand Down

0 comments on commit 6aa8f1a

Please sign in to comment.