On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:53:04AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: >> > BTW, you've missed several other places in mm/* doing fput(), so it wouldn't >> > be enough to paper over your problem anyway. >> > >> > Final fput() *can* happen under mmap_sem. Period. >> >> I think I got that loud and clear; otherwise we wouldn't have come up >> with deferring the __fput(). We have a very real problem here - writing >> extended attributes requires taking the i_mutex. > > Don't do it, then? If you _must_ write to xattr on final fput, I'd suggest > starting to figure out if xattr needs its protection to be ->i_mutex - it > might make sense to introduce a separate mutex for xattr crap. Or not - I'm "Or not" ... How to understand you? > not familiar enough with the guts of xattr handling in individual filesystems > to tell if that would work (e.g. if it would need unpleasant changes to > ->setattr() instances)... > -- > 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 -- 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
