You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The current comments in d_invalidate about what and why it is doing
what it is doing are wildly off-base. Which is not surprising as
the comments date back to last minute bug fix of the 2.2 kernel.
The big fat lie of a comment said: If it's a directory, we can't drop
it for fear of somebody re-populating it with children (even though
dropping it would make it unreachable from that root, we still might
repopulate it if it was a working directory or similar).
[AV] What we really need to avoid is multiple dentry aliases of the
same directory inode; on all filesystems that have ->d_revalidate()
we either declare all positive dentries always valid (and thus never
fed to d_invalidate()) or use d_materialise_unique() and/or d_splice_alias(),
which take care of alias prevention.
The current rules are:
- To prevent mount point leaks dentries that are mount points or that
have childrent that are mount points may not be be unhashed.
- All dentries may be unhashed.
- Directories may be rehashed with d_materialise_unique
check_submounts_and_drop implements this already for well maintained
remote filesystems so implement the current rules in d_invalidate
by just calling check_submounts_and_drop.
The one difference between d_invalidate and check_submounts_and_drop
is that d_invalidate must respect it when a d_revalidate method has
earlier called d_drop so preserve the d_unhashed check in
d_invalidate.
Reviewed-by: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <[email protected]>
0 commit comments