From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760223AbYGRTOl (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:14:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755952AbYGRTOc (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:14:32 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:59734 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750967AbYGRTOb (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:14:31 -0400 From: Jeff Moyer To: Ian Kent Cc: Andrew Morton , autofs mailing list , Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , Al Viro , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] autofs4 - fix indirect mount pending expire race References: <20080718023651.12802.59107.stgit@raven.themaw.net> <20080718023717.12802.80763.stgit@raven.themaw.net> <1216407362.18371.10.camel@raven.themaw.net> X-PGP-KeyID: 1F78E1B4 X-PGP-CertKey: F6FE 280D 8293 F72C 65FD 5A58 1FF8 A7CA 1F78 E1B4 X-PCLoadLetter: What the f**k does that mean? Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:14:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1216407362.18371.10.camel@raven.themaw.net> (Ian Kent's message of "Sat, 19 Jul 2008 02:56:01 +0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ian Kent writes: > On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 14:52 -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> Ian Kent writes: >> > } else { >> > + /* Path walk currently on this dentry? */ >> > + ino_count = atomic_read(&ino->count) + 1; >> > + if (atomic_read(&dentry->d_count) > ino_count) >> > + goto next; >> > + >> > expired = autofs4_check_leaves(mnt, dentry, timeout, do_now); >> > if (expired) { >> > dput(dentry); > > The expired dentry may be a different dentry! > >> > found: >> > DPRINTK("returning %p %.*s", >> > expired, (int)expired->d_name.len, expired->d_name.name); >> > + ino = autofs4_dentry_ino(expired); >> >> If we get here, ino is already set to the autofs4_dentry_ino(expired), >> so this statement is redundant. > > Almost but see above. Ah, you're right, I missed that. Cheers, Jeff