Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 16:00:35 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] freeing unlinked file indefinitely delayed
Message-ID: <20150712150035.GJ17109@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20150708014237.GC17109@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20150708154143.GG4015@sgi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150708154143.GG4015@sgi.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 984
Lines: 17

On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 10:41:43AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:

> The bug rings a bell for me so I will stick my neck out instead of
> lurking.  Don't you need to sample that link count under the filesystems
> internal lock in order to avoid an unlink/iget race?  I suggest creating
> a helper to prune disconnected dentries which a filesystem could call in
> .unlink.  That would avoid the risk of unintended side effects with the
> d_alloc/d_free/icache approach and have provable link count correctness.

For one thing, this patch does *not* check for i_nlink at all.  For another,
there's no such thing as 'filesystems internal lock' for i_nlink protection -
that's handled by i_mutex...  And what does iget() have to do with any of that?
--
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/