[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1hc7zabyl.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:05:22 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.27-rc7-sha1: EIP at proc_sys_compare+0x36/0x50
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> I actually like my second patch better - it looks simpler, and it means
> that the rules for filesystems using d_compare() are a bit clearer: at
> least we'll only pass them dentries to look at that haven't gone through
> d_drop (and we do hold dentry->d_lock that serializes all of that).
>
> So here it is again (I sent it out just minutes ago, but you weren't on
> that cc, you must have picked this up off the kernel list)
>
> NOTE! Totally untested patch! It looks sane and really obvious, but maybe
> it has some insane and non-obvious bug.
We definitely have a race between d_kill setting dentry->d_inode = NULL
and proc_sys_compare reading d_inode.
We don't generate negative dentries for /proc/sys.
In dput atomic_dec_and_lock takes the lock before setting the count to 0.
So there is no race there.
Testing for d_unhashed and getting us out of rcu limbo before calling
into the filesystem methods makes the reasoning a lot clearer.
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
--
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