On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 12:21:31AM +0100, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> Nothing prevents a dentry found by path lookup before a return of
> __debugfs_remove() to actually get opened after that return. Now, after
> the return of __debugfs_remove(), there are no guarantees whatsoever
> regarding the memory
"Paul E. McKenney" writes:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 12:21:31AM +0100, Nicolai Stange wrote:
>> Nothing prevents a dentry found by path lookup before a return of
>> __debugfs_remove() to actually get opened after that return. Now, after
>> the return of __debugfs_remove(), there are no guarantees
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 12:21:31AM +0100, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> Nothing prevents a dentry found by path lookup before a return of
> __debugfs_remove() to actually get opened after that return. Now, after
> the return of __debugfs_remove(), there are no guarantees whatsoever
> regarding the memory
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 12:21:31AM +0100, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> Nothing prevents a dentry found by path lookup before a return of
> __debugfs_remove() to actually get opened after that return. Now, after
> the return of __debugfs_remove(), there are no guarantees whatsoever
> regarding the memory
Nothing prevents a dentry found by path lookup before a return of
__debugfs_remove() to actually get opened after that return. Now, after
the return of __debugfs_remove(), there are no guarantees whatsoever
regarding the memory the corresponding inode's file_operations object
had been kept in.
Sin
5 matches
Mail list logo