[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1006071746150.4506@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 17:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
V9FS Developers <v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] 9p file system bug fixes for 2.6.35-rc2
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 05:08:19PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > In fact, the other thing that I find doing that whole "dentry->d_parent"
> > thing seems to literally be broken. If you look at v9fs_fid_lookup(),
> > you'll notice how it walks up the d_parent chain, and at that point you do
> > NOT own the directory i_mutex, so at that point d_parent really _can_ be
> > changing wildly due to concurrent renames or whatever.
>
> Eh... It's bogus, all right, but i_mutex is not the correct solution.
Oh, no, I didn't imply it was. But the other sites that I saw doing
the dentry->d_parent access already _had_ the i_mutex thing, so I was
pointing out how this one does not (and indeed _cannot_ do that).
So I'm just saying that pretty much _all_ the dentry->d_parent use in 9p
seems very suspect. The cases where we hold i_mutex (because the caller
already took it) shouldn't do that whole d_parent dance, because they get
the directory inode passed into them directly.
And the other places are just buggy.
So from a quick look, the use of d_parent in 9p is simply not a good idea.
Linus
--
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