Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:46:36 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.19-rc2-mm1 |
| |
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:41:40 +0200 (CEST) Jiri Kosina <jikos@jikos.cz> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > The inode->i_mutex should be held every time when calling > > > i_size_write(), and the function contains WARN_ON() for that > > > condition. page_symlink(), however, does not lock i_mutex. It is > > > perfectly OK, as the i_mutex for the directory is held at the time > > > page_symlink() is running, so noone is able to change i_size during > > > race condition. However, i_size_write() spits out the warning without > > > this patch. > > I suspect it isn't necessary because the symlink's inode hasn't been wired > > up into the directory tree yet and no other thread can find it and do > > things to it. > > I completely agree (see my comments to the patch in previous mail). > However, the warning emitted by i_size_write() should really go away. I > can see the following possibilities: > > - lock the i_mutex, even though it's for sure not necessary. Not nice. > - remove the warning from i_size_write(). Not nice either, we want to be > warned about other calls that are not correct > - make the warning in i_size_write() conditional on inode->i_dentry not > being NULL (?) >
I simply dropped the debugging patch. Which is pretty sad, because it _is_ a really nasty and subtle-to-show bug. So I'd be OK with adding sufficient patches to -mm to make the false positives go away so we can re-add the check.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |