[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1212514104.3025.110.camel@raven.themaw.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:28:23 +0800
From: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, jesper@...gh.cc,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.26-rc4
On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 17:50 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 05:41:03PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > >From my reading of that code looks like it's been rmdir'ed. And no, I
> > don't understand what the hell is that code trying to do.
> >
> > Ian, could you describe the race you are talking about?
>
> BTW, this stuff is definitely broken regardless of mount - if something
> had the directory in question opened before that rmdir and we'd hit
> your lookup_unhashed while another CPU had been in the middle of
> getdents(2) on that opened descriptor, we'll get
>
> vfs_readdir() grabs i_mutex
> vfs_readdir() checks that it's dead
> autofs4_lookup_unhashed() calls iput()
Can this really happen, since autofs4_lookup_unhashed() is only called
with the i_mutex held.
> inode is freed
> vfs_readdir() releases i_mutex - in already freed struct inode.
But it could happen later. So it's academic I guess.
>
> Hell, just getdents() right *after* dentry->d_inode = NULL will oops,
> plain and simple.
Yeah, I'll look into why I believed I needed to turn the dentry
negative. I'll need to keep the dentry positive through out this
process.
Ian
--
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