[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzimZezPFpNMdM_HRORWSzJGFLN_Go0Ci+hiZ3Vapu1Fg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:44:09 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>
Subject: Re: processes hung after sys_renameat, and 'missing' processes
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 08:36:07PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
>> I really believe that this pair of commits needs to be reverted. The
>> earlier code used to guarantee that alias would be detached.
>
> In the case that prompted that first commit, the directory in question
> had an alias that was detached (which I'm taking to mean IS_ROOT(dentry)
> was true?), but not flagged DISCONNECTED. The particular case was only
> reproduceable on an older kernel, and I couldn't find a similar
> reproducer on recent upstream, but I also couldn't convince myself it
> was impossible.
>
> So, maybe the correct thing is to revert that change. Or maybe it
> should be picking an IS_ROOT dentry instead of a DISCONNECTED one?
I've reverted the changes for now, it looks like the discussion about
them is still on-going, and I think I'll feel happier if we just go
back to the old status quo for the nonce.
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