[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <469E2A68.6010307@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:57:44 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To: Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
CC: Gabriel C <nix.or.die@...glemail.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, gregkh@...e.de,
miles.lane@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: kill an extra put in sysfs_create_link() failure
path
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> wrote:
>> There is a subtle bug in sysfs_create_link() failure path. When
>> symlink creation fails because there's already a node with the same
>> name, the target sysfs_dirent is put twice - once by failure path of
>> sysfs_create_link() and once more when the symlink is released.
>
> The "symlink" is released? But the creation of the symlink is
> precisely what failed here ... did it not?
>
>> Fix it by making only the symlink node responsible for putting
>> target_sd.
>
> And again ... the changelog sounds confusing indeed, perhaps I'm
> not familiar enough with sysfs symlink-related terminology/semantics.
> Care to elaborate?
>
>> sd = sysfs_new_dirent(name, S_IFLNK|S_IRWXUGO, SYSFS_KOBJ_LINK);
>> if (!sd)
>> goto out_put;
>> +
>> sd->s_elem.symlink.target_sd = target_sd;
>> + target_sd = NULL; /* reference is now owned by the
>> symlink */
>
> Wow. This looks like a very mysterious way to fix a mysterious bug :-)
> BTW I just looked over at sysfs_create_link() and ... it looks quite ...
> unnecessarily complicated/obfuscated ...
Well, I dunno. Probably my taste just sucks. Please feel free to
submit patches and/or suggest better ideas.
--
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists