[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712180923450.32179@sbz-30.cs.Helsinki.FI>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:31:03 +0200 (EET)
From: Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: serge@...lyn.com
cc: alan@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@...radead.org,
peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/8] revoke: inode revoke lock V7
Hi Serge,
(Thanks for looking at this. I appreciate the review!)
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, serge@...lyn.com wrote:
> > struct vfsmount *mnt = nd->mnt;
> > - struct dentry *dentry = __d_lookup(nd->dentry, name);
> > + struct dentry *dentry;
> >
> > +again:
> > + dentry = __d_lookup(nd->dentry, name);
> > if (!dentry)
> > goto need_lookup;
> > +
> > + if (dentry->d_inode && IS_REVOKE_LOCKED(dentry->d_inode)) {
>
> not sure whether this is a problem or not, but dentry->d_inode isn't
> locked here, right? So nothing is keeping do_lookup() returning
> with an inode which gets revoked between here and the return 0
> a few lines down?
I assume you mean S_REVOKE_LOCK and not ->i_mutex, right?
The caller is supposed to block open(2) with chmod(2)/chattr(2) so while
revoke is in progress, you can get references to the _revoked inode_,
which is fine (operations on it will fail with EBADFS). The
->i_revoke_wait bits are there to make sure that while we revoke, you
can't get a _new reference_ to the inode until we're done.
Pekka
--
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