On 10/23/2012 01:05 AM, Jan Schmidt wrote: > Hi liubo, > > On Mon, October 22, 2012 at 16:02 (+0200), Liu Bo wrote: >> According to btree's balance algorithm, when we split a root into two parts, >> we insert a new one to be their parent: >> >> new root >> node A / \ >> | x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 | => node A node A' >> | x1 x2 x3 - - - | | x4 x5 x6 - - - | >> split >> >> The original root won't be freed because it becomes a child of the new root, >> and a move to keep balance is needed then. >> >> So we should not add REMOVE_WHILE_FREEING keys for the old root, otherwise, >> we will hit use-after-free since we first add REMOVE_WHILE_FREEING keys and >> then add REMOVE keys, which is invalid. > > I don't like adding another parameter there, the function is already confusing > without it. I've got a different fix for that problem here as well. I haven't > been sending it since Friday because there's at least one additional problem in > the tree mod log, and I'd like to see all of the issues fixed. > > There's also a fix for double frees from push_node_left here. That one may be > fixing the other issue you're seeing (which I still cannot reproduce). I'm still > not convinced it's a good idea to change the semantics in del_ptr as done in > your previous patch set. > If you have better fixes, that'd be good. > Probably we can try working together on irc in a more interactive fashion? Or > tell me if you want my patches anywhere before I send them out. > OK, I'm on IRC now, lets rock it ;) thanks, liubo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
