[PATCH 2/4] sysfs: Implement sysfs manged shadow
Eric W. Biederman
ebiederm at xmission.com
Mon Jul 30 21:02:35 PDT 2007
Tejun Heo <teheo at suse.de> writes:
> 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.
Yes. Make certain to get the name change under sysfs_mutex
while you are at it.
What do we use inode->i_mutex for? I think we might be able
to kill that.
I'm starting to wonder if we can completely remove sysfs
from grabbing inode->i_mutex.
>> 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?
I'm still looking. I just have a weird vibe so far. sysfs_get_dentry
is really nasty with respect to locking.
More information about the Containers