lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [git pull] vfs and fs fixes
    On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
    >        A bunch of endianness fixes plus a patch from bfields untangling
    > dependencies between vfs and nfsd trees; in principle, we could keep it
    > in nfsd tree (along with a bunch of followups that definitely belong there),
    > but Miklos' stuff in fs/namei.c steps fairly close to it and overlayfs
    > and unionfs series - even closer, so that would create serious PITA for
    > both, whichever tree it would sit in.

    Why is that double mutex taking in vfs_rename_other() safe from ABBA?

    We aren't guaranteed to hold the s_vfs_rename_mutex, since the parent
    directories may be the same.

    And yes, we hold the i_mutex on that shared parent, but the inodes may
    exist (hardlinked) in another directory, so another rename could be
    doing the i_mutex in the reverse order.

    Maybe there is some reason why that double lock is safe, but I don't
    see it, and I want it clearly documented. So I'm not pulling this.

    Linus
    --
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-17 17:05    [W:0.022 / U:92.436 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site