Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello, > > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Ugh. I need to step back and carefully define what I'm seeing but it >> looks like the current sysfs locking is wrong. >> >> I'm starting to find little inconsistencies all over the place >> such as: >> >> Which lock actually protects sd->s_children? >> - It isn't sysfs_mutex. (see sysfs_lookup) >> - It isn't inode->i_mutex (we only get it if we happen to have the inode >> in core) > > Yeah, I missed two places while converting to sysfs_mutex. > sysfs_lookup() and rename(). I'm about to post patch to fix it.
Yes. Make certain to get the name change under sysfs_mutex while you are at it. What do we use inode->i_mutex for? I think we might be able to kill that. I'm starting to wonder if we can completely remove sysfs from grabbing inode->i_mutex. >> At first glance sysfs_assoc_lock looks just as bad. > > I think sysfs_assoc_lock is okay. It's tricky tho. Why do you think > it's bad? I'm still looking. I just have a weird vibe so far. sysfs_get_dentry is really nasty with respect to locking. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
