[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111216215451.GA20271@dztty>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:54:51 +0100
From: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: add missing mutex lock arround notify_change
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:55:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:25:34 +0100
> Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Calls to notify_change() must hold i_mutex.
> >
>
> ...
>
> <does a quick audit>
>
> fs/hpfs/namei.c and fs/nfsd/vfs.c:nfsd_setattr() aren't obviosuly
> holding that lock when calling notify_change(). Everything else under
> fs/ looks OK.
fs/nfsd/vfs.c:nfsd_setattr() is calling fh_lock() which calls
mutex_lock_nested() with the appropriate i_mutex of the dentry object.
There are some extra functions before the lock which are related to nfsd.
fs/hpfs/namei.c:hpfs_unlink() is using hpfs_lock() to lock the whole
filesystem.
So they are OK.
--
tixxdz
http://opendz.org
--
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