Hello,

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 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)

Yeah, I missed two places while converting to sysfs_mutex.
sysfs_lookup() and rename().  I'm about to post patch to fix it.

> At first glance sysfs_assoc_lock looks just as bad.

I think sysfs_assoc_lock is okay.  It's tricky tho.  Why do you think
it's bad?

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