On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 06:00:25PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote: > 2011/6/11 Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 05:43:14AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > >> Ok, if we look at sb-private data in the sget callsbacks it seems like > >> the clreanup for those does indeed need to be done in ->kill_sb. ?I have > >> to say I really hate it, and the culprit is that we call the sget test > >> callback is called before we call grab_super in sget, that is we don't > >> protect against filesystems going away. ?I suspect that is the real > >> problem here. > > > > grab_super() is *heavy* and having to undo it even once means that we need to > > rescan. ?Sorry, test() has to be callable without that. > > > > In this case, I think we should follow NFS strategy and apply my patch > as a workaround. Thoughts? See #untested in vfs-2.6.git; I *hope* I've got all the leaks in current mainline plugged and all sget() races ought to be taken care of. And yes, the branch name matches the reality - this sucker is completely untested. Have fun... Commit message is atrocious, of course - I'm too tired to even try writing a coherent patch description at the moment and I'll probably need to split it into several patches anyway. Tomorrow... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
