Hello, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Ugh. I need to step back and carefully define what I'm seeing but it > looks like the current sysfs locking is wrong. > > I'm starting to find little inconsistencies all over the place > such as: > > Which lock actually protects sd->s_children? > - It isn't sysfs_mutex. (see sysfs_lookup) > - It isn't inode->i_mutex (we only get it if we happen to have the inode > in core) Yeah, I missed two places while converting to sysfs_mutex. sysfs_lookup() and rename(). I'm about to post patch to fix it. > At first glance sysfs_assoc_lock looks just as bad. I think sysfs_assoc_lock is okay. It's tricky tho. Why do you think it's bad? -- tejun _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
