Re: [PATCH] cifs: guard against hardlinking directories

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Steve French <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 13:43:27 -0500
>> Steve French <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 11 May 2010 12:15:51 -0500
>>> > Steve French <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Merged into cifs-2.6.git - if the branch for-linus does not look
>>> >> weird/broken, plan to request upstream tonight.
>>> >
>>> > I just made some comments on this to the bug:
>>> >
>>> > https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7407#c13
>>> >
>>> > ...I wonder whether this patch may be too aggressive about disabling
>>> > serverino. It seems like we ought to be OK with finding an inode that
>>> > is "floating", just not one that has a dentry already attached.
>>> > Thoughts?
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
>>> >
>>>
>>> I agree - but have to deal with the oops first ASAP - narrow it later.
>>>
>>
>> I tend to agree -- disabling server inode numbers unnecessarily is
>> better than oopsing at umount. I did just test the attached modified
>> patch however and it fixes the reproducer I have for this. Thoughts on
>> going with this instead?
>
> Isn't this patch the same as the one you sent this morning? What changed?

Nevermind - I see the difference.  Makes sense.  You added the

&& !list_empty(&inode->i_dentry)

on the duplicate inode num check.

-- 
Thanks,

Steve