From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC] freeing unlinked file indefinitely delayed
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 16:00:35 +0100
Message-ID: <20150712150035.GJ17109@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20150708014237.GC17109@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20150708154143.GG4015@sgi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150708154143.GG4015@sgi.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 10:41:43AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:

> The bug rings a bell for me so I will stick my neck out instead of
> lurking.  Don't you need to sample that link count under the filesystems
> internal lock in order to avoid an unlink/iget race?  I suggest creating
> a helper to prune disconnected dentries which a filesystem could call in
> .unlink.  That would avoid the risk of unintended side effects with the
> d_alloc/d_free/icache approach and have provable link count correctness.

For one thing, this patch does *not* check for i_nlink at all.  For another,
there's no such thing as 'filesystems internal lock' for i_nlink protection -
that's handled by i_mutex...  And what does iget() have to do with any of that?