[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwwKEaTBX9Uoexpote7dOHBq+TiJ=RifzTpVL_jh24A9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:03:59 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless
update of refcount
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Not really. Sure, you'll retry it if you race with d_move(); that's not
> the real problem - access past the end of the object containing ->d_name.name
> would screw you and that's what ->d_lock is preventing there. Delayed freeing
> of what ->d_name is pointing into is fine, but it's not the only way to get
> hurt there...
Umm? We follow d->d_name.name without d_lock under RCU all the time -
that's what the pathname lookup is all about, after all.
Yes, yes, you haev to be careful and cannot just blindly trust the
length: you also have to check for NUL character as you are copying it
and stop if you hit it. But that's trivial.
Why would d_prepend be any different?
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