Re: [PATCH] autofs4 - fix get_next_positive_subdir()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 19:53 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Ian Kent <ikent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The locking for the list traversal in get_next_positive_subdir() is
> > wrong, so fix it.
> 
> As an explanation, this kind of thing is totally useless. It doesn't
> actually give any information at all. It's like saying "change
> locking"
> 
> What happened, and why? Why is the new nested spinlock ok and won't
> deadlock against other nested users? Wazzup?

It's good that you questioned this Linus.

Looking again at dput() I think the traversal still isn't quite right.

For a start the test for d_count 0 or positive and hashed can never be
true since the point of the change was to take the d_lock of the
d_subdirs dentry for the traversal.

I'll need to work on this some more, thanks.
Ian

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux