Greetings,
Lucas Correia Villa Real wrote:
> Oops, sorry. 2.4.20 and/or 2.4.21.
Ok, things are much clearer now :)
But I still have some doubts..CC'ing LKML to see if any of those
hackers can help us.
> int vfs_unlink(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
> {
> ...
> down(&dir->i_zombie);
> error = may_delete(dir, dentry, 0);
> if (!error) {
> ...
> if (!error) {
> if (dentry->d_inode && S_ISLNK (dentry->d_inode->i_mode))
> if (gobolinux_hide(dentry->d_inode->i_ino) > 0)
> gobolinux_inode_del(dentry->d_inode->i_ino)
Yeah, ok...but I still don't get when a dentry doesn't have a valid
d_inode why we don't return ENOENT like in sys_unlink:
slashes:
error = !dentry->d_inode ? -ENOENT :
S_ISDIR(dentry->d_inode->i_mode) ? -EISDIR : -ENOTDIR;
Which, by the way, would be called _instead_ of calling vfs_unlink...so
should we assume that the dentry _should_ have a valid dinode?
You said that the kernel oops'ed when unlinking a symlink in a NFS
partition, right?
Does anybody know if, in this case (a symlink inside a NFS partition),
the dentry really doesn't have a valid d_inode entry?
Thanks,
Felipe
--
It's most certainly GNU/Linux, not Linux. Read more at
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html