[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120607004000.GD30000@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 01:40:00 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: processes hung after sys_renameat, and 'missing' processes
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 08:29:14PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> void d_move(struct dentry *dentry, struct dentry *target)
> {
> write_seqlock(&rename_lock);
> +
> + BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&target->d_parent->d_lock));
> +
> + if (dentry->d_parent != NULL)
> + BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&dentry->d_parent->d_lock));
> +
> __d_move(dentry, target);
> write_sequnlock(&rename_lock);
> }
>
>
> To be clear, do you want me to try that with or without the reverts ?
No. Not ->d_lock; ->d_inode->i_mutex. _That_ needs to be held for
d_move() to be safe (and on cross-directory move you need ->s_vfs_rename_mutex
as well). I'd do it with WARN_ON, BTW, and without the reverts - that
way we'll have a clear indication if that code is stepped on.
--
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