[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7475.1241586545@jrobl>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 14:09:05 +0900
From: hooanon05@...oo.co.jp
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
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
"J. Bruce Fields":
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 04:27:05PM -0400, bfields wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 03:40:23PM +0900, hooanon05@...oo.co.jp wrote:
> > >
> > > "J. Bruce Fields":
> > > > > Isn't it better to test it BEFORE fh_compose()?
> > > :::
> > > > Yes, I think you're right.
:::
> Err, no, I was confused, the v3 spec does clearly state that the
> filehandle field here is just an optional optimization.
>
> But now that I look fh_compose() seems perfectly capable of dealing with
> negative dentries, so I don't think your patch is necessary after all.
I agree with you.
I just thought it is _better_ to test it BEFORE fh_compose(). I don't
think fh_compose() would crash.
If you move lookup_one_len() from nfsd4_encode_dirent_fattr() to
nfsd4_encode_dirent(), then I'd suggest you to move dput() too.
Applying your patch,
- when we get a negative dentry, nfsd4_encode_dirent() will return
without dput(). Is it OK?
- when lookup_one_len() returns an error, nfsd4_encode_dirent() may
crash later.
J. R. Okajima
--
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