lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 21:40:00 +0000 From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> To: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com> Cc: Patrick McLean <patrick@....mcgill.ca>, Patrick McLean <patrickm@...kai.com>, "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Regression with initramfs and nfsroot (appears to be in the dcache) On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 01:58:18PM +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > The reason for the choice of d_drop over d_invalidate() is the d_count > checks. It really doesn't matter whether or not the client thinks it has > users for a directory if the server is telling you that it is ESTALE. So > we force a d_drop to prevent further lookups from finding it. > > IOW: It is there in order to fix the case where the user does > 'rmdir("foo"); mkdir("foo")' on the server. You do realize that your have_submounts() check in there is inherently racy, right? -- 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