==> Regarding Re: [PATCH] dcache d_drop() bug fix / __d_drop() use fix; [EMAIL
PROTECTED] adds:
raven> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Jan Blunck wrote:
>> This is a re-submission of the patch I sent about a month ago.
>>
>> While working on my code I realized that d_drop() might race against
>> __d_lookup(). __d_drop() (which is called by d_drop() after acquiring the
>> dcache_lock) is accessing dentry->d_flags to set the DCACHE_UNHASHED flag.
>> This shouldn't be done without holding dentry->d_lock, like stated in
>> dcache.h:
>>
>> struct dentry {
>> ...
>> unsigned int d_flags; /* protected by d_lock */
>> ...
>> };
>>
>> Therefore d_drop() must acquire the dentry->d_lock. Likewise every use of
>> __d_drop() must acquire that lock.
>>
>> This patch fixes d_drop() and every grep'able __d_drop() use. This patch is
>> against today's http://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.5.
>>
raven> For my part, in autofs4, I would prefer:
> --- linux-2.6.9/fs/autofs4/root.c.d_lock 2005-02-16 23:15:18.000000000
> +0800
> +++ linux-2.6.9/fs/autofs4/root.c 2005-02-16 23:15:35.000000000 +0800
> @@ -621,7 +621,7 @@
> spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
> return -ENOTEMPTY;
> }
> - __d_drop(dentry);
> + d_drop(dentry);
> spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
> dput(ino->dentry);
Ian, this would deadlock. You already hold the dcache lock here, and
d_drop takes it:
static inline void d_drop(struct dentry *dentry)
{
spin_lock(&dcache_lock);
__d_drop(dentry);
spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
}
The proposed patch was to take the dentry->d_lock.
-Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
