On Fri, 2022-08-19 at 09:05 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, 18 Aug 2022, hooanon05g@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > "NeilBrown": > > > Thanks for the report. > > > This possibility of calling d_delete() twice has been present > > > since 9019fb391de0 in v5.16. > > > > I don't think 9019fb391de0 is a problem. > > Before v6.0-rc1, the target dentry was unhashed by __d_drop() call > > in > > nfs_unlink(), and nfs_dentry_handle_enoent() skipped calling > > d_delete() > > by simple_positive(). d_delete() was called only once via > > nfs_dentry_remove_handle_error(). > > Ahhh - simple_positive() checks d_unhashed() - I didn't connect that. > > So before my recent patch we needed the second call to d_delete() in > nfs_unlink() because the first wasn't effective. However the second > call in nfs_rmdir() was still a problem. > > So if the current fix (9a31abb1c009) gets ported back before the > patch > that removed unhash (3c59366c207e) then it won't do the right thing > for nfs_unlink(). As it has a Fixes: tag, that is likely. > > It would be better to protect the d_delete() with > d_really_is_positive(). > > Trond: can we drop that patch and replace it, or should I add the > d_really_is_positive() check with a new patch? It is the very last patch in the linux-next branch, so replacing it is not a huge problem. -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
