| Message ID | 20231109062056.3181775-3-viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [01/22] struct dentry: get rid of randomize_layout idiocy | expand |
On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 06:20:37AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > ->d_lock on parent does not stabilize ->d_inode of child. > We don't do much with that inode in there, but we need > at least to avoid struct inode getting freed under us... > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> > --- Looks good to me, Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
diff --git a/fs/coda/cache.c b/fs/coda/cache.c index 3b8c4513118f..bfbc03c6b632 100644 --- a/fs/coda/cache.c +++ b/fs/coda/cache.c @@ -92,13 +92,16 @@ static void coda_flag_children(struct dentry *parent, int flag) { struct dentry *de; + rcu_read_lock(); spin_lock(&parent->d_lock); list_for_each_entry(de, &parent->d_subdirs, d_child) { + struct inode *inode = d_inode_rcu(de); /* don't know what to do with negative dentries */ - if (d_inode(de) ) - coda_flag_inode(d_inode(de), flag); + if (inode) + coda_flag_inode(inode, flag); } spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock); + rcu_read_unlock(); return; }
->d_lock on parent does not stabilize ->d_inode of child. We don't do much with that inode in there, but we need at least to avoid struct inode getting freed under us... Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> --- fs/coda/cache.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)