On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Isn't the parent i_mutex held during mkdir()?
Yes, but a lookup that hits in the dentry cache won't actually take
the parent mutex.
So as far as I can tell, doing the "d_add()" before setting d_op can
result in another CPU coming in and seeing the newly added dentry
before d_op has actually been initialized. Exactly because it will do
the dentry lookup without holding any mutex.
Of course, it's a very small window, so it probably doesn't matter in practice.
>> Looking at it quickly, I don't think that would matter for
>> the case at hand. I.e., that might be safer but it doesn't
>> address the fact that these fields are getting initialized
>> multiple times.
>
> Yeah, a hangover from changes done over time.
> Not setting the dentry op in ->lookup() should fix this.
Alex, care to test just removing the d_set_d_op() call from autofs4_lookup()?
(That code is a bit scary, though - it explicitly makes it a negative
dentry with a d_instantiate(dentry, NULL), and then hides the inode
information away separately. Scary scary)
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
