On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Tejun Heo wrote:
quoted text
>
> * sysfs_move_dir() has an extra dput() on success path.

Are you sure? How did this ever work?

Also, looking at this, I think the "how did this ever work" question is 
answered by "it didn't", but I also think there are still serious problems 
there. Look at

	again:
	        mutex_lock(&old_parent->d_inode->i_mutex);
	        if (!mutex_trylock(&new_parent->d_inode->i_mutex)) {
	                mutex_unlock(&old_parent->d_inode->i_mutex);
	                goto again;
	        }

and wonder what happen sif old_parent == new_parent. Is that trying to 
avoid an ABBA deadlock? Normally you'd do it by ordering the locks, or by 
taking a third lock to guarantee serialization at a higher level (ie the 
"s_vfs_rename_mutex" on the VFS layer)

I'd like to apply these two patches, but I really want to get more of an 
ack for them from somebody like Al, or at least more of an explanation for 
why it's all the right thing.

			Linus
--
unsubscribe notice
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/