On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 09:16:54AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > It apparently has something to do with rcu and "address spaces" but I'm > > not completely sure what sparse is complaining about --- and whether it > > is a false positive or a bug in the posix_acl.h. > > I guess we should mark i_acl and i_defauly_acl to be RCU-accessed, and > then annotate all the accesses properly. I may be missing something, but it looks like the ACL code isn't following the RCU rules at _all_. Even with the missing rcu_derference() macro invocations which you added in your proof-of-concept patch, we're still missing the rcu_read_lock() calls around the use of the rcu pointers. If so, I'm kind of wondering why we haven't noticed massive problems here before. - Ted -- 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
