From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752360AbcHHQI2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 8 Aug 2016 12:08:28 -0400
Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:59992 "EHLO imap.thunk.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751479AbcHHQIZ (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 8 Aug 2016 12:08:25 -0400
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 12:08:18 -0400
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Cc: Johannes Stezenbach <js@sig21.net>,
        =?iso-8859-1?B?VPZy9ms=?= Edwin <edwin@etorok.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 4.7.0-rc7 ext4 error in dx_probe
Message-ID: <20160808160818.GA9515@thunk.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
	Johannes Stezenbach <js@sig21.net>,
	=?iso-8859-1?B?VPZy9ms=?= Edwin <edwin@etorok.net>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
References: <20160718141723.GA8809@sig21.net>
 <7849bcd2-142d-0a12-0a04-7d0c3b6d788f@etorok.net>
 <20160805103544.kbt7znbzypvi5ofx@sig21.net>
 <20160805170228.GA19960@birch.djwong.org>
 <20160805181136.mcjnnvuo5m6kpxzb@sig21.net>
 <20160805191548.GD19960@birch.djwong.org>
 <20160808035634.GA16193@thunk.org>
 <20160808062810.GC8590@birch.djwong.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160808062810.GC8590@birch.djwong.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 11:28:10PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> 
> I have one lingering concern -- is it a bug that two processes could be
> computing the checksum of a buffer simultaneously?  I would have thought ext4
> would serialize that kind of buffer_head access...

Do we know how this is happening?  We've always depended on the VFS to
provide this exclusion.  The only way we should be modifying the
buffer_head at the same time if two CPU's are trying to modify the
directory at the same time, and that should _never_ be happening, even
with the new directory parallism code, unless the file system has
given permission and intends to do its own fine-grained locking.

      		     	     	       	   - Ted