lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC v10][PATCH 09/13] Restore open file descriprtors
From
Date
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 16:00 -0500, Oren Laadan wrote:
> Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 15:41 -0500, Oren Laadan wrote:
> >>>>> + fd = cr_attach_file(file); /* no need to cleanup 'file' below */
> >>>>> + if (fd < 0) {
> >>>>> + filp_close(file, NULL);
> >>>>> + ret = fd;
> >>>>> + goto out;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /* register new <objref, file> tuple in hash table */
> >>>>> + ret = cr_obj_add_ref(ctx, file, parent, CR_OBJ_FILE, 0);
> >>>>> + if (ret < 0)
> >>>>> + goto out;
> >>>> Who said that file still exists at that point?
> >> Correct. This call should move higher up befor ethe call to cr_attach_file()
> >
> > Is that sufficient? It seems like we're depending on the fd's reference
> > to the 'struct file' to keep it valid in the hash. If something happens
> > to the fd (like the other thread messing with it) the 'struct file' can
> > still go away.
> >
> > Shouldn't we do another get_file() for the hash's reference?
>
> When a shared object is inserted to the hash we automatically take another
> reference to it (according to its type) for as long as it remains in the
> hash. See: 'cr_obj_ref_grab()' and 'cr_obj_ref_drop()'. So by moving that
> call higher up, we protect the struct file.

We also need to document that we depend on this reference in the hash to
keep the object around. Take a look at cr_read_fd_data(). Once that
cr_attach_file() has been performed, the only thing keeping the 'file'
around is the hash reference. If someone happened to remove it from the
hash, the vfs_llseek() below would be bogus.

I don't know how we document that the hash is one-way: writes only and
no later deletions.

-- Dave



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-02 02:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans