[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171109130854.GB1094@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 05:08:54 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] VFS: close race between getcwd() and d_move()
On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 01:41:24PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> On 9.11.2017 05:22, NeilBrown wrote:
> > @@ -493,12 +496,18 @@ void __d_drop(struct dentry *dentry)
> > } else
> > hlist_bl_lock(b);
> > __hlist_bl_del(&dentry->d_hash);
> > - dentry->d_hash.pprev = NULL;
> > + if (likely(!moving))
> > + dentry->d_hash.pprev = NULL;
>
> nit: isn't a bit more explicit if (unlikely(moving)). I suspect the end
> result is the same, however it's easy to miss the !. It's not a big deal
> but just wondering.
umm ... you just suggested the exact opposite of what the patch is
intended to do. likely()/unlikely() only hint to the compiler the
probabilities of the branch; they don't change the meaning of the
condition.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists