On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Omar Sandoval <osandov@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 03:40:04AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>
>> If it unhashed the old dentry, created a new one and attached inode to
>> it, it _might_ have a chance. I'm less than sure it's a good idea, but
>> it this form it's a non-starter.
>
> One thing I considered was having the filesystem unhash the dentry and
> just letting the next lookup that comes along instantiate the new one.
> Is that better or worse than doing something like your suggestion?
I don't have the background for why you want this, but the two
approaches should be equivalent.
However, it's not a safe operation in the general case, since the
low-level filesystem may depend on the single unique dentry meaning
that operations on one particular filename are serialized and that the
dentry is unique, and your "unhash and create new" would leave old
users with a stale dentry that is no longer "unique" in that filename.
So you certainly cannot do even that kind of "d_replace()" in some
general situation.
An example of that kind of situation is the whole "d_in_lookup()"
where we use the dentry itself to guarantee uniqueness while possibly
looking up multiple entries in parallell in the same directory.
So for some particular filesystem, under some very particular
situations, such a d_replace() may be valid. But without seeing the
background, it's hard to tell. Apparently this was discussed on the
fsdevel list that google doesn't even index, and looking at the
fsdevel archives is a pain. Looks like it's AT_REPLACE for linkat().
In that context it superficially looks ok to me (ie it's
filesystem-controlled and done only when we've serialized the
directory for the link() operation anyway). But I didn't think about
it _that_ much.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
