On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> Er... I have, actually, right in the part you've snipped ;-)
Heh. That's what I get for just reading the patch, and skimming the explanation.
> I would prefer to deal with (1) by turning mnt_hash into hlist; the problem
> with that is
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:02:33PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Quite frankly, if that's the main issue, then may I suggest aiming to
> use a 'hlist' instead of a doubly-linked list? Those have the
> advantage that they are NULL-terminated.
>
> Yeah, hlists have some disadvantages too, which
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> NAK. Nice catch, the bug is real, but the fix is wrong. For one thing,
> you have missed detach_mnt()/attach_mnt(), so you are not covering
> all places where the sucker might be removed from the list. For another,
> I don't believe that this
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:39:45PM +0100, Max Kellermann wrote:
> mount.mnt_hash is RCU-protected. However, list_move() breaks RCU
> protection: when one thread walks the linked list while another calls
> list_move(), it may "redirect" the first thread into the new list,
> making it loop
mount.mnt_hash is RCU-protected. However, list_move() breaks RCU
protection: when one thread walks the linked list while another calls
list_move(), it may "redirect" the first thread into the new list,
making it loop endlessly in __lookup_mnt(), because the list head is
never found.
The right
mount.mnt_hash is RCU-protected. However, list_move() breaks RCU
protection: when one thread walks the linked list while another calls
list_move(), it may redirect the first thread into the new list,
making it loop endlessly in __lookup_mnt(), because the list head is
never found.
The right way
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:39:45PM +0100, Max Kellermann wrote:
mount.mnt_hash is RCU-protected. However, list_move() breaks RCU
protection: when one thread walks the linked list while another calls
list_move(), it may redirect the first thread into the new list,
making it loop endlessly in
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
NAK. Nice catch, the bug is real, but the fix is wrong. For one thing,
you have missed detach_mnt()/attach_mnt(), so you are not covering
all places where the sucker might be removed from the list. For another,
I don't
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:02:33PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Quite frankly, if that's the main issue, then may I suggest aiming to
use a 'hlist' instead of a doubly-linked list? Those have the
advantage that they are NULL-terminated.
Yeah, hlists have some disadvantages too, which might
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
Er... I have, actually, right in the part you've snipped ;-)
Heh. That's what I get for just reading the patch, and skimming the explanation.
I would prefer to deal with (1) by turning mnt_hash into hlist; the problem
10 matches
Mail list logo
