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

Tejun Heo teheo at suse.de
Mon Jul 30 21:28:55 PDT 2007


Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 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.

i_mutex is grabbed when dentry and inode locking requires it.  It's not
used to protect sysfs internal data structure anymore.  I don't think we
can remove i_mutex grabbing without violating dentry/inode locking rules.

>>> 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.

Yes, sysfs_get_dentry() is pretty hairy.  I wish I could use
path_lookup() there but can't allocate memory for path name because
looking up must succeed when it's called from removal path if dentry
already exists.  Also, lookup_one_len_kern() bypasses security checks
and there's no equivalent path_lookup() like function which does that.

Locking rule aruond sysfs_assoc_lock is tricky.  It's mainly used to
avoid race condition between sysfs_d_iput() vs. dentry creation, node
removal, etc.  As long as sysfs_assoc_lock is held, sd->s_dentry can be
dereferenced but you also need dcache_lock to determine whether the
dentry is alive (dentry->d_inode != NULL) or in the process of being
killed.  There were two or three race conditions around dentry
reclamation in the past and several discussion threads about them.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun


More information about the Containers mailing list