Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:52:10 +0200 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com> Cc: Mikolaj Golub <trociny@freebsd.org>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/152079: [msdosfs] [patch] Small cleanups from the other NetBSD/OpenBSD Message-ID: <20110326145210.GD78089@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <553011.63188.qm@web113509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <20110326120421.GX78089@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <553011.63188.qm@web113509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 07:12:05AM -0700, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: > > --- On Sat, 3/26/11, Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > > ... > > Ok, after rereading the code, I do not believe that we need > > the change. The doscheckpath() does vput() on tdvp, and tvp > > is vput'ed right before line 1083, so jumping to the label > > `bad' instead of `out' will only result in the lock > > assertion being fired. > > > > Also, the msdosfs mount correctly unmounts after the > > attempt to perform a rename that doscheckpath() banned. > > This is additional evidence supporting my point. > > > > The question is, why did you decided that the fix is needed > > for FreeBSD ? > > > > Defensive programming. On NetBSD this apparently started > causing problems for unknown reasons, and doing the change > doesn't have any ill effect on FreeBSD. What is defensive in introducing the bug ? The change, applied to FreeBSD, will cause panic. > > I am OK, if you want to close the PR though, and thanks for > doing the complete research. > > Pedro. > > > > [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk2N/ZkACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4iMHQCg2gfCka+SyfkCmSfecjiftFBy tCEAnAs8HUG0Yu1TSOMJRd0sTQDWeQYg =pbbB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110326145210.GD78089>