On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:10:58PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:33:02PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:27:48PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:05:03PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > From: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Closing /dev/pts/ptmx removes the corresponding pty under /dev/pts/ > > > > without synchronizing against concurrent path walkers. This can lead to > > > > 'dcache_readdir()' tripping over a 'struct dentry' with a NULL 'd_inode' > > > > field: > > > > > > FWIW, vfs.git#fixes (or #next.dcache) ought to deal with that one. > > > > Is it feasible to backport your changes? Or do we want to merge the one > > here first and backport? > > I'm not sure. The whole pile is backportable, all right (and the first commit Ok. So here's what I propose: we'll merge this one as it seems an obvious fix to the problem and can easily be backported to stable kernels. Then you'll land your generic workaround alleviating callers from holding inode_lock(). Then I'll send a patch to remove the inode_lock() from devpts for master. If we see that your fix is fine to backport and has no performance impacts that you find unacceptable we backport it. > alone should take care of devpts problem). However, there's a performance > regression on some loads; it *is* possible to get the thing reasonably lockless > without fucking it up (as the original conversion had been). Still not > in the series, since cifs (ab)use of dcache_readdir() needs to be clarified > to figure out the right way to do it. Asked CIFS folks, got no reaction > whatsoever, will ask again... > > Al, mostly back after flu, digging through the piles of mail Ugh, flu season... Christian
