[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110726185920.GA2970@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:59:20 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PULL REQUEST] ext3, jbd, ext2, and quota fixes for 3.1-rc1
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 07:52:20PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Note that dentry obviously can't be NULL there. dentry->d_parent is never
> NULL. And dentry->d_parent would better not be negative, for crying out
> loud! What's worse, there's no guarantees that dentry->d_parent will
> remain our parent over that sync_mapping_buffers() *and* that inode won't
> just be freed under us (after rename() and memory pressure leading to
> eviction of what used to be our dentry->d_parent). Moreover, even if
> inode survives in icache, there is no promise that it will have an alias
> in dcache by the time we get to the next iteration of the loop, so this
> list_entry() next time around can bloody well happen to &inode->i_dentry,
> dentry being a garbage address somewhere inside that struct inode (or a
> bit above it - I hadn't compared offsets).
In addition to beeing bogus the code also is useless. fsync on a file
explicitly does not guarantee anything at all about the parent, and
never really has on Linux either.
--
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