slava@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > What do you mean by mishandling? Do you imply that Ceph has to set up > the I_NEW somehow? Is it not VFS responsibility? No - I mean that if I_NEW *isn't* set when the function is called, ceph_fill_inode() will go and partially reinitialise the inode. Now, having reviewed the code in more depth and talked to Jeff Layton about it, I think that the non-I_NEW pass will only change pointers with some sort of locking and will release the old target - though it may overwrite some pointers with the same value without protection (i_fops for example). That said, if it's possible for *two* processes to be going through that function without I_NEW set, you can get places where both of them will try freeing the old data and replacing it with new without any locking - but I don't know if that can happen. David
