On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 09:53:16PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > On 11/30/2011 09:33 PM, Chris Dunlop wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 08:22:39PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: >>> On 11/30/2011 06:47 PM, Chris Dunlop wrote: >>>>> It's also worth printing a message - this *is* a kernel bug of some description >>>>> if it happens. >>>> >>>> Like the below? This covers the d_revalidate for 9p, afs, coda, >>>> hfs, ncpfs, proc, sysfs. >>>> >>>> Note: jfs isn't susceptible to this problem, but the resolution >>>> doesn't look like the other file systems, and from the comment >>>> I'm not sure if the problem was really understood and if it's >>>> doing the right thing: >>> >>> This code, as well as the comments, were copied from vfat. It seems >>> reasonable for case-insensitive but case-preserving behavior (not jfs's >>> default). The safe thing is to drop the negative dentry if we don't know >>> the operation. >> >> In that case, it looks like the thing to do might be to add the >> "protection" to the start of jfs_ci_revaliate(), per how the >> original has been changed in vfat: > > The LOOKUP_RCU check had previously been there, but Al Viro removed it: > > commit 5c0f360b083fb33d05d1bff4b138b82d715eb419 > Author: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat Jun 25 21:41:09 2011 -0400 > > jfs_ci_revalidate() is safe from RCU mode > > I'm not sure what it takes to be "safe", but this is a simple function > that doesn't block, take locks, or do much of anything. You shouldn't > need to do anything with jfs. > > Shaggy OK, thanks. Chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
