[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130322000803.GG21522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:08:03 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: VFS deadlock ?
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 04:58:41PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And the only other reason we don't want to allow it is to make sure
> you can't have directory loops etc, afaik, and again, for this
> particular case of /proc, we happen to be ok.
Not really. Do that and yes, this deadlock goes away. But the locking
order in general goes to hell - we order directory inodes by "which dentry
is an ancestor of another?" So we have no warranty that we won't get
alias1/foo/bar/baz < alias2/foo. Take rename_lock() on those two and
have it race with rmdir alias2/foo/bar/baz (locks alias2/foo/bar, then
alias2/foo/bar/baz) and rmdir alias2/foo/bar (locks alias2/foo and
alias2/foo/bar). Oops - we have a cycle now...
--
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