Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:48:28 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: miklos@szeredi.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] vfs: new O_NODE open flag
Message-ID: <20091202204828.4fa0c108@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <E1NFva6-0001AI-0J@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
References: <E1NFrsv-0000mE-2L@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
	<20091202191549.1dbffa2e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	<E1NFva6-0001AI-0J@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1114
Lines: 23

[Ridiculous cc list cleaned]

> > udev defends against it with the specific knowledge that any existing
> > open means the device is open and cannot be unloaded. The combination is
> > required (and some other happenstance properties).
> 
> You're still missing the point.  O_NODE is like a hard link, except
> the reference doesn't come from the filesystem but from a file
> descriptor.  From udev's perspective there's no difference.

I don't think I am missing the point here. You have a reference to an
object in the fs but you don't have a reference to the driver underneath
s the driver can change on you *while* you have the O_NODE open and fd
live. That cannot happen with a hard link and open.

It isn't the same thing as far as I can see. You don't have the barrier
between the operations that occurs in the real open/close case because
they lock the driver.
--
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/