[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFw75=Mtq1njQ9vNmNsGuTPbpUhLHnb7YBLmCZs4Q5ByMA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:01:48 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs and fs fixes
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> A bunch of endianness fixes plus a patch from bfields untangling
> dependencies between vfs and nfsd trees; in principle, we could keep it
> in nfsd tree (along with a bunch of followups that definitely belong there),
> but Miklos' stuff in fs/namei.c steps fairly close to it and overlayfs
> and unionfs series - even closer, so that would create serious PITA for
> both, whichever tree it would sit in.
Why is that double mutex taking in vfs_rename_other() safe from ABBA?
We aren't guaranteed to hold the s_vfs_rename_mutex, since the parent
directories may be the same.
And yes, we hold the i_mutex on that shared parent, but the inodes may
exist (hardlinked) in another directory, so another rename could be
doing the i_mutex in the reverse order.
Maybe there is some reason why that double lock is safe, but I don't
see it, and I want it clearly documented. So I'm not pulling this.
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