Re: [PATCH] autofs4 - fix get_next_positive_subdir()

[Ian Kent]

On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 15:30 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 15:22 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 19:53 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Ian Kent <ikent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The locking for the list traversal in get_next_positive_subdir() is
> > > > wrong, so fix it.
> > > 
> > > As an explanation, this kind of thing is totally useless. It doesn't
> > > actually give any information at all. It's like saying "change
> > > locking"
> > > 
> > > What happened, and why? Why is the new nested spinlock ok and won't
> > > deadlock against other nested users? Wazzup?
> > 
> > It's good that you questioned this Linus.
> > 
> > Looking again at dput() I think the traversal still isn't quite right.
> > 
> > For a start the test for d_count 0 or positive and hashed can never be
> 
> Correction, that second check is actually !(positive and hashed) in the
> code.
> 
> > true since the point of the change was to take the d_lock of the
> > d_subdirs dentry for the traversal.

That's not right, ignore this.

> > 
> > I'll need to work on this some more, thanks.
> > Ian
> 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/