to den 06.10.2005 Klokka 20:49 (+0200) skreiv Miklos Szeredi:
> For simplicity case let's omit the creation of simlink, just say, the
> file is removed.
>
> So NFS calls have_submounts(), which returns true.
>
> Then the bind is umounted. Nothing prevents this happening
> concurrently with the lookup.
>
> Then the file is removed on the server.
>
> When open_namei() gets around to following the mounts, it is not there
> any more, so the dentry for /mnt/foo (the NFS one is returned) and
> NFS's ->open is called on the file, which returns -ENOENT. But
> open(..., O_CREAT, ...) should never return -ENOENT.
...and so the VFS can recognise the case, and be made to retry the
operation.
A more difficult race to deal with occurs if you allow a mount while
inside d_revalidate(). In that case NFS can end up opening the wrong
file.
Both these two races could, however, be fixed by moving the
__follow_mount() in open_namei() inside the section that is protected by
the parent directory i_sem.
In any case, all you are doing here is showing that the situation w.r.t.
mount races and lookup+create+open is difficult. I see nothing that
convinces me that a special atomic create+open will help to resolve
those races.
Nor do I see that adding a special atomic create+open will help me avoid
intents for the case of atomic lookup+open(). As far as I'm concerned,
the case of lookup+create+open is just a special case of lookup+open.
Cheers,
Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
