Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 21:54:04 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        "Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@hp.com>,
        "Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless
 update of refcount
Message-ID: <20130830205404.GF13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <CA+55aFx1oq7+jce8vLWRitASVMugCojYe3gmhXwhLx4K9Au3XQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFyq7dJnm6tfn12hLOw5qKLW2RXRFERHgZO-sOOnUmjd3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <52200DAE.2020303@hp.com>
 <CA+55aFyhTR15GBS4VNoRkcFyubEJU7a+Pzd-6VZeKoU8qB0q5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5220E56A.80603@hp.com>
 <CA+55aFzv9BZ2+B2NrNRRtTqnfgbH3LRSvSsUZVsy-g9OpM-8HA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5220F090.5050908@hp.com>
 <CA+55aFzqJ5So9Hj1H0C86e4s13FuEEC_n6ubgJ6SexEDB5rYHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5220FD51.2010709@hp.com>
 <CA+55aFzhiLMdSCnePX0OgFUXo7KC+aomM8URppDuV+7xUaaSpw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzhiLMdSCnePX0OgFUXo7KC+aomM8URppDuV+7xUaaSpw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1130
Lines: 24

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 01:43:11PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com> wrote:
> >
> > The prepend_path() isn't all due to getcwd. The correct profile should be
> 
> Ugh. I really think that prepend_path() should just be rewritten to
> run entirely under RCU.
> 
> Then we can remove *all* the stupid locking, and replace it with doing
> a read-lock on the rename sequence count, and repeating if requited.
> 
> That shouldn't even be hard to do, it just requires mindless massaging
> and being careful.

Not really.  Sure, you'll retry it if you race with d_move(); that's not
the real problem - access past the end of the object containing ->d_name.name
would screw you and that's what ->d_lock is preventing there.  Delayed freeing
of what ->d_name is pointing into is fine, but it's not the only way to get
hurt there...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/