[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090422191244.GD9541@fieldses.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:12:44 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: hooanon05@...oo.co.jp
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, hch@...radead.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Fix i_mutex handling in nfsd readdir
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 01:41:46PM +0900, hooanon05@...oo.co.jp wrote:
>
> David Woodhouse:
> > This patch fixes it by locking the directory's i_mutex again before
> > calling the filldir functions. The original deadlocks which commit
> :::
>
> An entry may be removed between the first mutex_unlock and the second
> mutex_lock. In this case, lookup_one_len() in compose_entry_fh() will
> return a negative dentry.
> Currently the inode test (positive/negative) is done AFTER fh_compose().
> Isn't it better to test it BEFORE fh_compose()?
>
> compose_entry_fh()
> {
> :::
> dchild = lookup_one_len(name, dparent, namlen);
> if (IS_ERR(dchild))
> return 1;
> if (d_mountpoint(dchild) ||
> fh_compose(fhp, exp, dchild, &cd->fh) != 0 ||
> !dchild->d_inode)
> rv = 1;
> :::
> }
Yes, I think you're right.
Arrrgh.
--b.
--
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