| Message ID | 1335209867-1831-3-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com |
|---|---|
| State | RFC, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
diff --git a/block/blk-cgroup.c b/block/blk-cgroup.c index 126c341..35fd701 100644 --- a/block/blk-cgroup.c +++ b/block/blk-cgroup.c @@ -1557,10 +1557,12 @@ static void blkiocg_destroy(struct cgroup *cgroup) spin_unlock(&blkio_list_lock); } while (1); + spin_lock_irqsave(&blkcg->lock, flags); list_for_each_entry_safe(pn, pntmp, &blkcg->policy_list, node) { blkio_policy_delete_node(pn); kfree(pn); } + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&blkcg->lock, flags); free_css_id(&blkio_subsys, &blkcg->css); rcu_read_unlock();
policy_list walks are protected with blkcg->lock everywhere else in the code. In destroy(), they are not. Because destroy is usually protected with the cgroup_mutex(), this is usually not a problem. But it would be a lot better not to assume this. Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com> --- block/blk-cgroup.c | 2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)