[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0801151928380.2806@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:41:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Gabor Gombas <gombasg@...aki.hu>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
bluez-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc7 2/2] sysfs: fix bugs in
sysfs_rename/move_dir()
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> * sysfs_move_dir() has an extra dput() on success path.
Are you sure? How did this ever work?
Also, looking at this, I think the "how did this ever work" question is
answered by "it didn't", but I also think there are still serious problems
there. Look at
again:
mutex_lock(&old_parent->d_inode->i_mutex);
if (!mutex_trylock(&new_parent->d_inode->i_mutex)) {
mutex_unlock(&old_parent->d_inode->i_mutex);
goto again;
}
and wonder what happen sif old_parent == new_parent. Is that trying to
avoid an ABBA deadlock? Normally you'd do it by ordering the locks, or by
taking a third lock to guarantee serialization at a higher level (ie the
"s_vfs_rename_mutex" on the VFS layer)
I'd like to apply these two patches, but I really want to get more of an
ack for them from somebody like Al, or at least more of an explanation for
why it's all the right thing.
Linus
--
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