[PATCH 2/4] sysfs: Implement sysfs manged shadow directory support.

Tejun Heo teheo at suse.de
Mon Jul 30 20:41:45 PDT 2007


Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Ugh.  I need to step back and carefully define what I'm seeing but it
> looks like the current sysfs locking is wrong.
> I'm starting to find little inconsistencies all over the place
> such as:
> Which lock actually protects sd->s_children?
> - It isn't sysfs_mutex.  (see sysfs_lookup)
> - It isn't inode->i_mutex (we only get it if we happen to have the inode
>   in core)

Yeah, I missed two places while converting to sysfs_mutex.
sysfs_lookup() and rename().  I'm about to post patch to fix it.

> At first glance sysfs_assoc_lock looks just as bad.

I think sysfs_assoc_lock is okay.  It's tricky tho.  Why do you think
it's bad?


More information about the Containers mailing list