On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 07:52:20PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > Note that dentry obviously can't be NULL there. dentry->d_parent is never > NULL. And dentry->d_parent would better not be negative, for crying out > loud! What's worse, there's no guarantees that dentry->d_parent will > remain our parent over that sync_mapping_buffers() *and* that inode won't > just be freed under us (after rename() and memory pressure leading to > eviction of what used to be our dentry->d_parent). Moreover, even if > inode survives in icache, there is no promise that it will have an alias > in dcache by the time we get to the next iteration of the loop, so this > list_entry() next time around can bloody well happen to &inode->i_dentry, > dentry being a garbage address somewhere inside that struct inode (or a > bit above it - I hadn't compared offsets). In addition to beeing bogus the code also is useless. fsync on a file explicitly does not guarantee anything at all about the parent, and never really has on Linux either. -- 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
