From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug  8 15:32:21 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6871065675;
	Wed,  8 Aug 2012 15:32:21 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f54.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f54.google.com
	[209.85.215.54])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C898FC14;
	Wed,  8 Aug 2012 15:32:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lage12 with SMTP id e12so415912lag.13
	for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
	:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=nO+tSADGelsgCVnG2cB+TFY8luUjUjRqcv6P8NysJ9E=;
	b=kmJ9PEChRMKO5l0DBG3aVFqfV3jkh/lA4wyAS7aPQqOVkvh8hCGUBW3EjHeMzb7jku
	7JQ+8oeZKLaqB3AMh5/5Po9yb5ql+5XE8oGX49jfvX8VPZgI9Voy5rxnxaNno/i7IPXh
	PeWgjrNaxEPUkKioAGwIdu/z8+1gTvF/BUcnV+Eaqcj/sA9RSC126sUPQ/rs2kxRtjY5
	bwHfGkNmtI4N9463GiyMsPNCByCSU/re9NXw21y4dEmkz//3Uetb7rYuDuhcm0wT35+V
	Ou3yn7JG+lUcLwidAX1W8Jqe6NYo1JAwfj9vnjSunYvlj41z/wrSFM0Q2yG8HfIoJJMo
	1wPw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.103.146 with SMTP id fw18mr18598585lab.30.1344439938922;
	Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: asmrookie@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.27.65 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5022840B.3060708@omnilan.de>
References: <op.v9l1byf89gyv16@pp>
	<CAJ-FndAFMV2iHcMKvMruCP+HRzwQuY1Jcd_o6ZEnTCiPV8_8oA@mail.gmail.com>
	<op.waqux6rr9gyv16@cel.home> <5022840B.3060708@omnilan.de>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:32:18 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: uKy94LxDYymzyWkVHPBNV6EPQqc
Message-ID: <CAJ-FndD_N2Bib1qXgFHNkKRFckvT13MGb3w-e7v4mZ=5jc6c+g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>
To: Harald Schmalzbauer <h.schmalzbauer@omnilan.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: stable@freebsd.org, daichi@freebsd.org, Pavel Polyakov <bsd@kobyla.org>
Subject: Re: lock violation in unionfs (9.0-STABLE r230270)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: attilio@FreeBSD.org
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:32:21 -0000

On 8/8/12, Harald Schmalzbauer <h.schmalzbauer@omnilan.de> wrote:
>  schrieb Pavel Polyakov am 06.03.2012 11:20 (localtime):
>>>> mount -t unionfs -o noatime /usr /mnt
>>>>
>>>> insmntque: mp-safe fs and non-locked vp: 0xfffffe01d96704f0 is not
>>>> exclusive locked but should be
>>>> KDB: enter: lock violation
>>>
>>> Pavel,
>>> can you give a spin to this patch?:
>>> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/unionfs_missing_insmntque_lock.patch
>>>
>>> I think that the unlocking is due at that point as the vnode lock can
>>> be switch later on.
>>>
>>> Let me know what you think about it and what the test does.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> This patch fixes the problem with lock violation. Sorry I've tested it so
>> late.
>
> Hello,
>
> this patch still applies cleanly to RELENG_9_1. Was there another fix
> for the issue or has it just not been PR-sent and thus forgotten?

There are more things to fix in inode instantiation for unionfs. I
hope to make a comprehensive patch for tests in a couple of days.

Thanks,
Attilio


-- 
Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein