Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Jun 2006 06:05:57 +0200 | From | Willy Tarreau <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4.33-rc1 |
| |
Hi Grant,
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 11:09:15AM +1000, Grant Coady wrote:
> >What puzzles me is how are we supposed to up(&nd.dentry->d_inode->i_sem) if > >dentry->d_inode can become NULL ? simply by keeping a copy of it ? I thought > >that the down() protected the whole thing, but may be that's stupid anyway. > >I've been running rc1 without this patch for a few hours and during kernel > >compiles without a problem, so I'm not sure about what to think about the > >other changes which were apparently harmless too :-/ > > So what's the final fixup? Last two patches don't seem to cause the > problems previously reported by me. They don't play together though, > so I'll add my general sense of confusion to this issue ;)
:-) Marcelo's patch applies to sys_unlink(). It prevents sys_unlink() from oopsing while releasing the inode's semaphore after vfs_unlink() has nullified the inode pointer.
Mine did nearly the same within vfs_unlink(), where you got your original oopses.
> Should I run the thing (which patch?) and compile a hundred kernels > or something to see what (if anything) breaks. Shortest day of year > here, I don't mind running the test box as part of room heating :o)
If you want to heat your room, you should effectively apply both patches, then run a hundred kernel compiles. Removing the "-pipe" option to gcc would help a lot since it will have to create temp files.
> Thanks, > Grant.
Thanks for your time, Willy
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |