On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 03:43:24PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > OK. What do you have to say about this statement? > > Because fsnotify_nameremove() is called from d_delete() with negative > or unhashed dentry, d_move() is not expected on this dentry, so it is > safe to use d_parent/d_name without take_dentry_name_snapshot(). > > I assume it is not correct, but cannot figure out why. > Under what circumstances is d_move() expected to move an unhashed > dentry and hash it? For starters, d_splice_alias() picking an exising alias for given directory inode. > My other thought is why is fsnotify_nameremove() in d_delete() and > not in vfs_unlink()/vfs_rmdir() under parent inode lock like the rest > of the fsnotify_create/fsnotify_move hooks? > > In what case would we need the fsnotify event that is not coming > from vfs_unlink()/vfs_rmdir()? *snort* You can thank those who whine about notifications on sysfs/devpts/whatnot. Go talk to them if you wish, but don't ask me to translate what you'll get into something coherent - I'd never been able to.
