On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:33:28PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Which just makes me suspect that it's *another* case of bug in the > dentry_kill() sequence. I think the dentry_rcuwalk_barrier() thing is > crap: it doesn't *cover* the d_inode change with the write lock, it > just puts that "barrier" there, which is bogus. You can get a > successful read of the changed inode without ever failing the read > lock sequence! Huh? We do __d_drop() in there, and do that before we start messing with ->d_inode. And barrier here will make sure that anything that might have found this sucker prior to that __d_drop() will fail ->d_seq check - it bumps ->d_seq by 2... As long as ->d_inode change happens under ->d_lock and ->d_seq is bumped along with that change, we should be fine, no? -- 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
