Hi Grant,
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 11:09:15AM +1000, Grant Coady wrote:
> >What puzzles me is how are we supposed to up(&nd.dentry->d_inode->i_sem) if
> >dentry->d_inode can become NULL ? simply by keeping a copy of it ? I thought
> >that the down() protected the whole thing, but may be that's stupid anyway.
> >I've been running rc1 without this patch for a few hours and during kernel
> >compiles without a problem, so I'm not sure about what to think about the
> >other changes which were apparently harmless too :-/
>
> So what's the final fixup? Last two patches don't seem to cause the
> problems previously reported by me. They don't play together though,
> so I'll add my general sense of confusion to this issue ;)
:-)
Marcelo's patch applies to sys_unlink(). It prevents sys_unlink() from
oopsing while releasing the inode's semaphore after vfs_unlink() has
nullified the inode pointer.
Mine did nearly the same within vfs_unlink(), where you got your original
oopses.
> Should I run the thing (which patch?) and compile a hundred kernels
> or something to see what (if anything) breaks. Shortest day of year
> here, I don't mind running the test box as part of room heating :o)
If you want to heat your room, you should effectively apply both
patches, then run a hundred kernel compiles. Removing the "-pipe"
option to gcc would help a lot since it will have to create temp files.
> Thanks,
> Grant.
Thanks for your time,
Willy
-
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]
