lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 10 Dec 2009 15:20:20 -0500
FromValerie Aurora <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/41] VFS: BUG() if somebody tries to rehash an already hashed dentry
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 08:43:58PM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote:
> In message <1256152779-10054-2-git-send-email-vaurora@redhat.com>, Valerie Aurora writes:
> > From: Jan Blunck <jblunck@suse.de>
> >
> > Break early when somebody tries to rehash an already hashed dentry.
> > Otherwise this leads to interesting corruptions in the dcache hash table
> > later on.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@suse.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Valerie Aurora <vaurora@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > fs/dcache.c | 1 +
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
> > index 9e5cd3c..38bf982 100644
> > --- a/fs/dcache.c
> > +++ b/fs/dcache.c
> > @@ -1550,6 +1550,7 @@ void d_rehash(struct dentry * entry)
> > {
> > spin_lock(&dcache_lock);
> > spin_lock(&entry->d_lock);
> > + BUG_ON(!d_unhashed(entry));
> > _d_rehash(entry);
> > spin_unlock(&entry->d_lock);
> > spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
>
> This patch seems unrelated to union mounts. If so, can you get it pushed
> upstream sooner? Or is this a debugging patch useful only when developing
> union mounts?
>
> You also said that it can lead to "ineresting corruptions". What kind of
> corruptions exactly? Also, would it make more sense to allow _d_rehash() to
> hash in an unhashed dentry for the first time?

Hi Erez,

Thanks for your great review! I am working my way through your
comments one by one.

This is a trivial patch which happened to be useful during our
development and seems like it might be useful for other VFS-related
development. I will submit it as part of our VFS patch set and drop
it if the maintainers don't want it.

I don't have an opinion on _d_rehash(), I'm afraid.

-VAL


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-10 21:23    [from the cache]
©2003-2010