[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3ef26bf7-c5ea-1af4-b40f-308bcb4e9ce6@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 18:02:21 +0200
From: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
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 9.11.2017 15:08, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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.
brainfart, disregard my comment doh....
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists