On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:15:55AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 8:02 AM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 06:49:10AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:41:41PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >> > From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >> > Split out common helper for race free insertion of an already allocated
> >> > inode into the cache. Use this from iget5_locked() and
> >> > insert_inode_locked4(). Make iget5_locked() use new_inode()/iput() instead
> >> > of alloc_inode()/destroy_inode() directly.
> >>
> >> ... thus hitting the sucker with ->evict_inode(), in condition that is quite
> >> likely to be unfit to be seen by that.
> >>
> >> NAK.
> >
> > To clarify: objection here is against the switch to new_inode/iput. The rest is
> > sane. What makes new_inode() better here, anyway?
>
> Umm, got to look into this. The patch has already been pulled by
> Linus, but I hope it's salvageable.
Incremental follows. I think it's cleaner to initialize i_state and i_sb_list
up front (hence the use of new_inode()), but could just as well add to sb list
afterwards.
---
diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
index 0df41bb77e0f..03c0d7c1296f 100644
--- a/fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/inode.c
@@ -1098,8 +1098,10 @@ struct inode *iget5_locked(struct super_block *sb, unsigned long hashval,
if (new) {
inode = inode_insert5(new, hashval, test, set, data);
- if (unlikely(inode != new))
- iput(new);
+ if (unlikely(inode != new)) {
+ inode_sb_list_del(inode);
+ destroy_inode(new);
+ }
}
}
return inode;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
