Searched hist:dfef6dcd (Results 1 – 4 of 4) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/proc/ |
| H A D | inode.c | dfef6dcd Tue Mar 08 00:25:28 CST 2011 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> unfuck proc_sysctl ->d_compare()
a) struct inode is not going to be freed under ->d_compare();
however, the thing PROC_I(inode)->sysctl points to just might.
Fortunately, it's enough to make freeing that sucker delayed,
provided that we don't step on its ->unregistering, clear
the pointer to it in PROC_I(inode) before dropping the reference
and check if it's NULL in ->d_compare().
b) I'm not sure that we *can* walk into NULL inode here (we recheck
dentry->seq between verifying that it's still hashed / fetching
dentry->d_inode and passing it to ->d_compare() and there's no
negative hashed dentries in /proc/sys/*), but if we can walk into
that, we really should not have ->d_compare() return 0 on it!
Said that, I really suspect that this check can be simply killed.
Nick?
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| H A D | proc_sysctl.c | dfef6dcd Tue Mar 08 00:25:28 CST 2011 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> unfuck proc_sysctl ->d_compare()
a) struct inode is not going to be freed under ->d_compare();
however, the thing PROC_I(inode)->sysctl points to just might.
Fortunately, it's enough to make freeing that sucker delayed,
provided that we don't step on its ->unregistering, clear
the pointer to it in PROC_I(inode) before dropping the reference
and check if it's NULL in ->d_compare().
b) I'm not sure that we *can* walk into NULL inode here (we recheck
dentry->seq between verifying that it's still hashed / fetching
dentry->d_inode and passing it to ->d_compare() and there's no
negative hashed dentries in /proc/sys/*), but if we can walk into
that, we really should not have ->d_compare() return 0 on it!
Said that, I really suspect that this check can be simply killed.
Nick?
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/include/linux/ |
| H A D | sysctl.h | dfef6dcd Tue Mar 08 00:25:28 CST 2011 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> unfuck proc_sysctl ->d_compare()
a) struct inode is not going to be freed under ->d_compare();
however, the thing PROC_I(inode)->sysctl points to just might.
Fortunately, it's enough to make freeing that sucker delayed,
provided that we don't step on its ->unregistering, clear
the pointer to it in PROC_I(inode) before dropping the reference
and check if it's NULL in ->d_compare().
b) I'm not sure that we *can* walk into NULL inode here (we recheck
dentry->seq between verifying that it's still hashed / fetching
dentry->d_inode and passing it to ->d_compare() and there's no
negative hashed dentries in /proc/sys/*), but if we can walk into
that, we really should not have ->d_compare() return 0 on it!
Said that, I really suspect that this check can be simply killed.
Nick?
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/kernel/ |
| H A D | sysctl.c | dfef6dcd Tue Mar 08 00:25:28 CST 2011 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> unfuck proc_sysctl ->d_compare()
a) struct inode is not going to be freed under ->d_compare();
however, the thing PROC_I(inode)->sysctl points to just might.
Fortunately, it's enough to make freeing that sucker delayed,
provided that we don't step on its ->unregistering, clear
the pointer to it in PROC_I(inode) before dropping the reference
and check if it's NULL in ->d_compare().
b) I'm not sure that we *can* walk into NULL inode here (we recheck
dentry->seq between verifying that it's still hashed / fetching
dentry->d_inode and passing it to ->d_compare() and there's no
negative hashed dentries in /proc/sys/*), but if we can walk into
that, we really should not have ->d_compare() return 0 on it!
Said that, I really suspect that this check can be simply killed.
Nick?
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|