[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17015.1433174029@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 16:53:49 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Can ovl_drop_write() be called earlier in ovl_dentry_open()
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
> >> Hmm, that could result in a race where remount r/o of upper fs comes
> >> in between copy-up and vfs_open() so copy-up succeeds but the actual
> >> open fails. It's harmless, though, and not very likely. So I guess
> >> your patch is OK.
> >
> > That race is there anyway if there's no copy up, right?
>
> No. The race I'm talking about is that with your patch it's possible
> that the file will be copied up, but open will return -EROFS.
Ah, I see what you're getting at.
> Without your patch, that is not possible since holding write counter
> for the mnt over both the copy-up and the open ensures that the
> filesystem cannot become read-only in the middle.
>
> So your patch changes behavior, but the new behavior is acceptable,
> because there's no major change in semantics (it should only be
> detectable by the increased disk usage in the rare case of the failed
> open).
Okay.
David
--
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