Hi,
Alexander Viro wrote:
> unlink("/B/b") locks /B, removes "b" and unlocks /B. Then it calls
> affs_remove_link(), which blocks.
>
> unlink("/A/a") locks /A, removes "a" and unlocks /A. Then it calls
> affs_remove_link(). Which locks /B, renames removed entry into "b",
> removes old "b" and inserts renamed "a" into /B.
>
> The rest is irrelevant - we're already in it.
Thanks for finding that one, but it should be easy to fix. I can remove
the parent pointer in aff_remove_hash and check for that before I try to
rename that entry.
> Since you don't lock /B for affs_empty_dir(), you can hit the
> window between removing old /B/a and inserting renamed /A/a into /B.
> Notice that VFS _does_ lock /B (->i_zombie), but affs_remove_link()
> for /A/a doesn't even look at it.
I thought about that one and I know it should be locked. The reason I
don't do right now is, that affs supports hardlinks to dirs. The problem
are especially recursive links, e.g.:
mkdir A
ln A A/B
rm A/B
This is possible with affs, but will already deadlock in vfs.
mkdir A
mkdir A/B
ln A A/B/C
rm A/B/C/A &
rm A/B/C &
rm A/B
Every rm already takes the hash lock of the parent and then I can't
simply also take the hash lock of the dir itself. What I actually want
to do is to insert a reverse is_subdir() check before taking the lock.
On the other hand I was thinking whether I should allow links to dirs at
all and just show them as empty/readonly dirs. For 2.4 that's probably
safer, as it would require a lot of locking changes in vfs and the other
fs to support this properly, particularly moving most of the locking
from vfs into the fs.
bye, Roman
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 21 2001 - 18:21:09 EDT