[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091104142418.GB4355@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:24:18 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...et.ca>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...stanetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/13] sysfs: Implement sysfs_getattr & sysfs_permission
Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com):
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> writes:
>
> > So the inode->i_mutex is not needed?
>
> Good question. Nothing in sysfs needs it. The VFS does not grab the
> inode mutex on this path, but the vfs does grab the inode mutex when
> writing to the inode.
All callers of fs/attr.c:notify_change() do seem to take the i_mutex,
though. And Documentation/filesystem/Locking claims that ->setattr()
does need i_mutex. So I assume that setting of inode->i_ctime etc,
which is what you're doing here, needs to be protected by the i_mutex.
> Since the VFs isn't grabbing the inode_mutex there is probably a race in
> here somewhere if someone looks at things just right.
>
> I am too tired tonight to be that person.
The readers take no lock of any sort (i.e. generic_fillattr and its
callers) so IIUC they could get inconsistent data...
-serge
--
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