Re: [PATCH] Re: BUG: race-cond with partition-check

Re: [PATCH] Re: BUG: race-cond with partition-check

[COTTE]

Hi Andries!

>Ah, yes. This second assignment can just be deleted, I suppose.
>
>[In the good old days it wasn't there. It was added in 1.3.19,
>don't know why, probably as a safeguard to make sure nobody
>used these values while they are being set up. But someone
>was bit by the assignment, since it is not undone if we take
>the return, so in 2.3.48 the assignment was moved past the
>return, with a conditional assignment before it. I believe
>you are right, and we only want the conditional assignment.]
>
>Andries

Thank you _very_ much for looking into it and accepting my suggestion.
Your patch will fix the problem perfectly good.

with kind regards
Carsten Otte

IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
Linux for 390/zSeries Development - Device Driver Team
Phone: +49/07031/16-4076
IBM internal phone: *120-4076
--
We are Linux.
Resistance indicates that you're missing the point!

Re: [PATCH] Re: BUG: race-cond with partition-check

[Malcolm Beattie]

Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl writes:
> --- partitions/check.c~	Thu May 31 22:26:56 2001
> +++ partitions/check.c	Fri Jun  8 10:44:02 2001
> @@ -418,11 +418,10 @@
>  		blk_size[dev->major] = NULL;
>  
>  	dev->part[first_minor].nr_sects = size;
> -	/* No Such Agen^Wdevice or no minors to use for partitions */
> +	/* No such device or no minors to use for partitions */


Any reason why you're silently removing a good old anti-NSA joke?
Conspiracy theorists may have fun with that... :-)

--Malcolm

-- 
Malcolm Beattie <mbeattie@sable.ox.ac.uk>
Unix Systems Programmer
Oxford University Computing Services

[PATCH] Re: BUG: race-cond with partition-check

[Andries.Brouwer]

    From COTTE@de.ibm.com Fri Jun  8 09:57:01 2001

    >Well, among the irrelevant details you left out is the fact that
    >it is not
    >    blk_size[dev->major] =3D NULL;
    >but
    >    if(!dev->sizes)
    >         blk_size[dev->major] =3D NULL;

    Well, this is absoloutely right, the behaviour to clear blk_size
    when dev->sizes
    is NULL looks sensible to me. But seven lines below it says
    -unconditionaly-:
         blk_size[dev->major] =3D NULL;

Ah, yes. This second assignment can just be deleted, I suppose.

--- partitions/check.c~	Thu May 31 22:26:56 2001
+++ partitions/check.c	Fri Jun  8 10:44:02 2001
@@ -418,11 +418,10 @@
 		blk_size[dev->major] = NULL;
 
 	dev->part[first_minor].nr_sects = size;
-	/* No Such Agen^Wdevice or no minors to use for partitions */
+	/* No such device or no minors to use for partitions */
 	if (!size || minors == 1)
 		return;
 
-	blk_size[dev->major] = NULL;
 	check_partition(dev, MKDEV(dev->major, first_minor), 1 + first_minor);
 
  	/*

[In the good old days it wasn't there. It was added in 1.3.19,
don't know why, probably as a safeguard to make sure nobody
used these values while they are being set up. But someone
was bit by the assignment, since it is not undone if we take
the return, so in 2.3.48 the assignment was moved past the
return, with a conditional assignment before it. I believe
you are right, and we only want the conditional assignment.]

Andries