From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Biggers Subject: Re: fs/namei.c: Misuse of sequence counts? Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:01:42 -0500 Message-ID: <20141012040142.GB24463@zzz> References: <20141011225808.GA20777@zzz> <20141012001259.GM7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Return-path: Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174]:51736 "EHLO mail-ig0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750710AbaJLEBk (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Oct 2014 00:01:40 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141012001259.GM7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 01:12:59AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > Huh? What's to guarantee that dentry hasn't become negative since the > moment we'd fetched the seqcount? _That_ is the problem we are dealing > with here - link_path_walk() relies on nd->inode being non-NULL. Hmm, I guess that makes sense. So the code is actually verifying that the inode is still the inode that was referenced from the current or root directory when nd->path was set. But couldn't the problem also be solved by setting nd->inode directly in the fs->seq retry loops? (The file descriptor case could be 'nd->inode = file_inode(f.file);'.) Then there would be no need for the extra read_seqcount_retry() just for the inode. The patch you posted looks correct, but I wonder if this approach would be better.