Commit 6aa8f1a6 authored by Kent Overstreet's avatar Kent Overstreet

bcache: Fix a dumb race

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: default avatarKent Overstreet <kmo@daterainc.com>
Cc: linux-stable <stable@vger.kernel.org> # >= v3.10
parent 8e51e414
......@@ -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);
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment