[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120417170614.GA29994@fieldses.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:06:14 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs and fs fixes
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 09:33:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
> >
> > Ugh, no, I think you're right:
> >
> > rename A/a->A/b
> > rename B/b->B/b
> >
> > where A/a and B/a are the same file, and A/b and B/b are the same file,
> > can result in the first rename holding the lock on A and a and waiting
> > on b, and the second holding the lock on B and b and waiting on a.
>
> In fact I don't think you need even that much. Just a simple
>
> touch a
> ln a b
> mv a b
>
> looks like it should deadlock on itself, no? source and dest inodes
> will be the same, so the mutex_lock() will just deadlock without even
> any ABBA race.
>
> (I didn't really check - maybe there is some reason that doesn't happen).
Yeah, rename has that funny exception that makes the above a no-op, so I
think that's safe.
But the patch is still wrong; back to the drawing board.
Maybe a paper bag over my head will help my concentration....
--b.
--
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