[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150802043947.GB17109@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 05:39:47 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@....fr>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs.git spurious ENOTDIR fix
On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 09:06:55PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> (I don't actually understand why the clearing of DCACHE_ENTRY_TYPE in
> dentry_iput() is not of continuing concern; but don't worry, there's
> plenty I don't understand - so long as you're both satisfied that
> it's not a concern, no need to persuade me.)
Because before we even get to dentry_iput(), we evict the fucker from hash.
And that will do dentry_rcuwalk_invalidate(dentry), which will bump ->d_seq
*AFTER* having it unhashed. Now look at __d_lookup_rcu() - there we fetch
->d_seq, then verify that it's still hashed.
So having hit dentry_iput() means that everyone who'd found it via RCU
lookup will be guaranteed a ->d_seq mismatch. The same goes for things
like d_drop() and d_instantiate(). Look for dentry_rcuwalk_invalidate()
callers in there...
Clearing DCACHE_ENTRY_TYPE there is fine - dentry *is* made negative there,
after all. What we want is to have ->d_inode stable at least as long as
->d_seq remains so.
--
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