Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Oct 2013 04:27:15 +0100 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: spinlock contention of files->file_lock |
| |
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 07:02:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Shouldn't a cmpxchg() in just the dup2 code solve that? > > If the old value was NULL, you'd have to repeat and go back and see if > the open_fds[] bit had been cleared in the meantime (ie it's NULL not > because somebody else is busy installing it, but because somebody just > uninstalled it).
Yechh... Under ->file_lock (in do_dup2()), hopefully? Or you'll get all kinds of fun with close() thrown into the game, as well...
> But yeah, I do agree that that sounds nasty and a complication I > hadn't even thought about. dup2() does violate our normal "let's > pre-allocate the fd slot" rule. Ugh.
Hell knows... Descriptor handling *is* pretty well isolated these days, so it just might be doable without disrupting the living hell out of anything else. fs/file.c is pretty much it - everything else goes through it.
I've enough on my plate at the moment with fs/namespace.c and fs/namei.c, though, and praying hard fs/inode.c doesn't enter the game. I _know_ that fs/notify will and I'm not enjoying that for a second. BTW, has eparis resurfaced with any fixes for *notify/umount races? I don't seem to have anything related in the mailbox, but...
| |