On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 05:45:06PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > We shouldn't, at least not for something that has been successfully > opened. I've a patch series cleaning that up a bit in the local > queue; will check for bitrot and throw into for-next.
Egads... OK, that has gone more than slightly out of control - right now vfs.git#for-next is at 106 commits, -3.6KLoC balance and *still* hadn't reached the ->f_op part of that work ;-/ OTOH, procfs-related code got a lot cleaner and we actually have a chance to make the guts of proc_dir_entry private to fs/proc now... I'll cull the outright bug fixes into for-linus and push it your way... The thing that really worries me is debugfs; that fscker sets whatever file_operations it's got from the driver that registered a file there and sticks that into ->i_fop. When we try to open() that, we get try_module_get() ->i_fop->owner; so far, so good, but what if the driver has just been removed *and* file_operations instance we are looking at has already been freed? IOW, how do we deal with a race between attempt to open a debugfs file and its removal on driver unload? Greg? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
