Re: [PATCH v8 07/11] proc: flush task dcache entries from all procfs instances
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Date: 2020-02-12 20:38:44
Also in:
linux-api, linux-fsdevel, lkml
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2020-02-14 · Re: [PATCH v8 07/11] proc: flush task dcache entries from all procfs instances · Eric W. Biederman <hidden>
- 2020-02-14 · Re: [PATCH v8 07/11] proc: flush task dcache entries from all procfs instances · Eric W. Biederman <hidden>
- 2020-02-14 · Re: [PATCH v8 07/11] proc: flush task dcache entries from all procfs instances · Eric W. Biederman <hidden>
- 2020-02-13 · Re: [PATCH v8 07/11] proc: flush task dcache entries from all procfs instances · Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
- 2020-02-13 · Re: [PATCH v8 07/11] proc: flush task dcache entries from all procfs instances · Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:35:04PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:03 PM Al Viro [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
What's to prevent racing with fs shutdown while you are doing the second part?I was thinking that only the proc_flush_task() code would do this. And that holds a ref to the vfsmount through upid->ns. So I wasn't suggesting doing this in general - just splitting up the implementation of d_invalidate() so that proc_flush_task_mnt() could delay the complex part to after having traversed the RCU-protected list. But hey - I missed this part of the problem originally, so maybe I'm just missing something else this time. Wouldn't be the first time.
Wait, I thought the whole point of that had been to allow multiple procfs instances for the same userns? Confused...