Ugh.  I need to step back and carefully define what I'm seeing but it
looks like the current sysfs locking is wrong.

I'm starting to find little inconsistencies all over the place
such as:

Which lock actually protects sd->s_children?
- It isn't sysfs_mutex.  (see sysfs_lookup)
- It isn't inode->i_mutex (we only get it if we happen to have the inode
  in core)

At first glance sysfs_assoc_lock looks just as bad.

Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers