Tejun Heo wrote: > Greg KH wrote: >> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:31:01AM +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote: >>> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 08:16:10PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: >>>> Allowing attribute and symlink dentries to be reclaimed means >>>> sd->s_dentry can change dynamically. However, updates to the field >>>> are unsynchronized leading to race conditions. This patch adds >>>> sysfs_lock and use it to synchronize updates to sd->s_dentry. >>>> >>>> Due to the locking around ->d_iput, the check in sysfs_drop_dentry() >>>> is complex. sysfs_lock only protect sd->s_dentry pointer itself. The >>>> validity of the dentry is protected by dcache_lock, so whether dentry >>>> is alive or not can only be tested while holding both locks. >>>> >>>> This is minimal backport of sysfs_drop_dentry() rewrite in devel >>>> branch. >>>> >>>> DONT APPLY JUST YET >>> Looks ok to me.. I have tested it it but unfortunately I couldn't >>> recreate the race without the patch also. It would be helpful if >>> people actually seeing the race, provide the test results. >>> >>> Greg, please merge this one once we have some test results. >> Can someone just resend it after those test results are in, with the >> proper signed-off-by, so I know it's safe to apply? > > I'll resend with S-O-B after someone verifies it fixes the problem.
Have been trying to reproduce the problem on the latest -rc but haven't succeeded yet. It seems I lost my magic recipe for these races. Did anyone succeed? -- tejun - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
