Is lockref_get_not_zero() really correct in dget_parent()

[NeilBrown]

Hi,
 I've been looking at last year's change to dentry refcounting which sets the
 refcount to -128 (mark_dead()) when the dentry is gone.

 As this is an "unsigned long" and there are several places where
 d_lockref.count is compared e.g. "> 1", I start feeling uncomfortable, as
 "-128" is greater than "1".

 Most of them look safe because there is locking in place and
 d_lockref.count will never be seen as "-128" unless you get the reference
 with only rcu_read_lock().

 That brings me to dget_parent().  It only has rcu_read_lock() protection, and
 yet uses lockref_get_not_zero().  This doesn't seem safe.

 Is there a reason that it is safe that I'm not seeing?  Or is the following
 needed?

Thanks,
NeilBrown

Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>

diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
index 06f65857a855..c48ce95a38f2 100644
--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
@@ -699,7 +699,7 @@ struct dentry *dget_parent(struct dentry *dentry)
 	 */
 	rcu_read_lock();
 	ret = ACCESS_ONCE(dentry->d_parent);
-	gotref = lockref_get_not_zero(&ret->d_lockref);
+	gotref = lockref_get_not_dead(&ret->d_lockref);
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 	if (likely(gotref)) {
 		if (likely(ret == ACCESS_ONCE(dentry->d_parent)))

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature