I did not sleep last night while I hacked on certain things. I should
have just stepped away from my keyboard for a break a few hours before I
wrote that, but regrettably, I did not.
I sent an email retracting it almost immediately after I sent it. My
apologies for the noise.
On 08/08/2013 03:08 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:42:22PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>> dir_emit_dotdot() currently passes parent_ino(file->f_path.dentry) to
>> dir_emit(). Passing a dentry to parent_ino() is wrong. This should have
>> been parent_ino(file->f_path.dentry->i_ino).
>
> What the hell? For the benefit of people who can't be arsed to learn
> how to use grep, parent_ino() is defined in include/linux/fs.h and
> that definition is
>
> static inline ino_t parent_ino(struct dentry *dentry)
> {
> ino_t res;
>
> /*
> * Don't strictly need d_lock here? If the parent ino could change
> * then surely we'd have a deeper race in the caller?
> */
> spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
> res = dentry->d_parent->d_inode->i_ino;
> spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
> return res;
> }
>
> Mind explaining your "passing dentry to parent_ino() is wrong"? What else
> to pass there? Incidentally, struct dentry has no field called 'i_ino',
> so with that patch the whole thing won't compile, period.
>
> Consider the patch NAKed.
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
