On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 16:00 -0500, Oren Laadan wrote: > Dave Hansen wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 15:41 -0500, Oren Laadan wrote: > >>>>> + fd = cr_attach_file(file); /* no need to cleanup 'file' below > >>>>> */ > >>>>> + if (fd < 0) { > >>>>> + filp_close(file, NULL); > >>>>> + ret = fd; > >>>>> + goto out; > >>>>> + } > >>>>> + > >>>>> + /* register new <objref, file> tuple in hash table */ > >>>>> + ret = cr_obj_add_ref(ctx, file, parent, CR_OBJ_FILE, 0); > >>>>> + if (ret < 0) > >>>>> + goto out; > >>>> Who said that file still exists at that point? > >> Correct. This call should move higher up befor ethe call to > >> cr_attach_file() > > > > Is that sufficient? It seems like we're depending on the fd's reference > > to the 'struct file' to keep it valid in the hash. If something happens > > to the fd (like the other thread messing with it) the 'struct file' can > > still go away. > > > > Shouldn't we do another get_file() for the hash's reference? > > When a shared object is inserted to the hash we automatically take another > reference to it (according to its type) for as long as it remains in the > hash. See: 'cr_obj_ref_grab()' and 'cr_obj_ref_drop()'. So by moving that > call higher up, we protect the struct file.
We also need to document that we depend on this reference in the hash to keep the object around. Take a look at cr_read_fd_data(). Once that cr_attach_file() has been performed, the only thing keeping the 'file' around is the hash reference. If someone happened to remove it from the hash, the vfs_llseek() below would be bogus. I don't know how we document that the hash is one-way: writes only and no later deletions. -- Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html