[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141025081845.GJ7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 09:18:45 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] overlay filesystem v25
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:24:45AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> The reason I didn't do your "fix" is that it
>
> - adds more lines than it takes,
>
> - I wasn't sure at all if the lockless access is actually correct
> without the ACCESS_ONCE and all the memory barrier magic that might be
> necessary on weird architectures.
_What_ lockless accesses? There is an extremely embarrassing bug in that
commit, all right, but it has nothing to do with barriers... All
barrier-related issues are taken care of by ovl_path_upper() (and without
that you'd have tons of worse problems). Fetching ->upperfile outside of
->i_mutex is fine - in the worst case we'll fetch NULL, open the sucker
grab ->i_mutex and find out that it has already been taken care of.
In which case we fput() what we'd opened and move on (fput() under
->i_mutex is fine - it's going to be delayed until return from syscall
anyway).
There was a very dumb braino in there; fixed, force-pushed, passes unionmount
tests, no regressions on LTP syscall ones and xfstests.
--
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