summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/mm
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorHugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>2011-05-14 12:06:42 -0700
committerLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>2011-05-14 12:18:55 -0700
commit05bf86b4ccfd0f197da61c67bd372111d15a6620 (patch)
tree23db61517fad9b68b19fdbe044fa3dbe8fc2bd19 /mm
parentafa49791caae70cc3fd665a182eea61250795265 (diff)
downloadlinux-3.10-05bf86b4ccfd0f197da61c67bd372111d15a6620.tar.gz
linux-3.10-05bf86b4ccfd0f197da61c67bd372111d15a6620.tar.bz2
linux-3.10-05bf86b4ccfd0f197da61c67bd372111d15a6620.zip
tmpfs: fix race between swapoff and writepage
Shame on me! Commit b1dea800ac39 "tmpfs: fix race between umount and writepage" fixed the advertized race, but introduced another: as even its comment makes clear, we cannot safely rely on a peek at list_empty() while holding no lock - until info->swapped is set, shmem_unuse_inode() may delete any formerly-swapped inode from the shmem_swaplist, which in this case would leave a swap area impossible to swapoff. Although I don't relish taking the mutex every time, I don't care much for the alternatives either; and at least the peek at list_empty() in shmem_evict_inode() (a hotter path since most inodes would never have been swapped) remains safe, because we already truncated the whole file. Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> Cc: stable@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'mm')
-rw-r--r--mm/shmem.c10
1 files changed, 4 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
index 9e755c166cc..dfc7069102e 100644
--- a/mm/shmem.c
+++ b/mm/shmem.c
@@ -1037,7 +1037,6 @@ static int shmem_writepage(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc)
struct address_space *mapping;
unsigned long index;
struct inode *inode;
- bool unlock_mutex = false;
BUG_ON(!PageLocked(page));
mapping = page->mapping;
@@ -1072,15 +1071,14 @@ static int shmem_writepage(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc)
* we've taken the spinlock, because shmem_unuse_inode() will
* prune a !swapped inode from the swaplist under both locks.
*/
- if (swap.val && list_empty(&info->swaplist)) {
+ if (swap.val) {
mutex_lock(&shmem_swaplist_mutex);
- /* move instead of add in case we're racing */
- list_move_tail(&info->swaplist, &shmem_swaplist);
- unlock_mutex = true;
+ if (list_empty(&info->swaplist))
+ list_add_tail(&info->swaplist, &shmem_swaplist);
}
spin_lock(&info->lock);
- if (unlock_mutex)
+ if (swap.val)
mutex_unlock(&shmem_swaplist_mutex);
if (index >= info->next_index) {