Re: RFC replace some locking of i_sem wiht atomic_t

On 4/2/06, Al Viro <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:01:30AM -0700, Joshua Hudson wrote:
> > Herein lies the problem with the current locking scheme:
> > 1. rename locks target if it exists, but target may be created by
> > link() immediately
> > after the check&lock procedure.
> > 2. The target of link() is completely unprotected.
>
> 3. You have failed to RTFS or RTFM.
>
Ah here we are

directory-locking.txt shows link() does:
lock parent
insure that source is not a directory
lock source

Let me guess, parent means parent of target, not parent of source.
This has been confusing me for months. Thanks for streightning me out.
-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: RFC replace some locking of i_sem wiht atomic_t
    • From: "Joshua Hudson" <[email protected]>
  • Re: RFC replace some locking of i_sem wiht atomic_t
    • From: Al Viro <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: include/asm-arm/memory.h changes break zaurus sl-5500 boot
• Next by Date: Re: include/asm-arm/memory.h changes break zaurus sl-5500 boot
• Previous by thread: Re: RFC replace some locking of i_sem wiht atomic_t
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] splice exports
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]