[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc7 2/2] sysfs: fix bugs in sysfs_rename/move_dir()

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Tejun Heo wrote:
> * sysfs_move_dir() has an extra dput() on success path.

Are you sure? How did this ever work?

Also, looking at this, I think the "how did this ever work" question is
answered by "it didn't", but I also think there are still serious problems
there. Look at

if (!mutex_trylock(&new_parent->d_inode->i_mutex)) {
goto again;

and wonder what happen sif old_parent == new_parent. Is that trying to
avoid an ABBA deadlock? Normally you'd do it by ordering the locks, or by
taking a third lock to guarantee serialization at a higher level (ie the
"s_vfs_rename_mutex" on the VFS layer)

I'd like to apply these two patches, but I really want to get more of an
ack for them from somebody like Al, or at least more of an explanation for
why it's all the right thing.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-16 04:45    [W:0.065 / U:5.460 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site