Re: processes hung after sys_renameat, and 'missing' processes

[Dave Jones]

On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 12:54:04AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

 > What we need is ->i_mutex on parents.  And I'm much more concerned about
 > this: 7732a557b1342c6e6966efb5f07effcf99f56167 and
 >  3f50fff4dace23d3cfeb195d5cd4ee813cee68b7.
 > 
 > Dave, you seem to be able to reproduce it; could you try with those two
 > commits reverted?  This stuff is *definitely* wrong with the way it
 > treats d_move(); there we might get it with parents not locked at all.
 > 
 > FWIW, I'd suggest adding a check into d_move(); new parent must be
 > locked in all cases and old one whenever dentry has one (i.e. isn't
 > disconnected).  If you can find a violation of that, you very likely
 > have found the cause of that bug.

Like this ?

 void d_move(struct dentry *dentry, struct dentry *target)
 {
        write_seqlock(&rename_lock);
+
+       BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&target->d_parent->d_lock));
+
+       if (dentry->d_parent != NULL)
+               BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&dentry->d_parent->d_lock));
+
        __d_move(dentry, target);
        write_sequnlock(&rename_lock);
 }


To be clear, do you want me to try that with or without the reverts ?

	Dave

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/