Nest rename_lock inside vfsmount_lock
... lest we get livelocks between path_is_under() and d_path() and friends. The thing is, wrt fairness lglocks are more similar to rwsems than to rwlocks; it is possible to have thread B spin on attempt to take lock shared while thread A is already holding it shared, if B is on lower-numbered CPU than A and there's a thread C spinning on attempt to take the same lock exclusive. As the result, we need consistent ordering between vfsmount_lock (lglock) and rename_lock (seq_lock), even though everything that takes both is going to take vfsmount_lock only shared. Spotted-by: Brad Spengler <spender@grsecurity.net> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment