Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 14:56:21 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: KATO Takenori <kato@freefall.freebsd.org> Cc: CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/miscfs/union union_vnops.c Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.970416144928.13445B-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <199704151257.FAA07824@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I saw that you found the real fix later. Cool. Regarding the below, I think it's better to panic in this case. Making things robust often works against making it work correctly. Consistency checks that result in panics are there to help you find problems. Working around consistency checks usually results in crufty code. Just my opinion. Regards, Mike Hancock On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, KATO Takenori wrote: > kato 97/04/15 05:57:00 > > Modified: sys/miscfs/union union_vnops.c > Log: > Quick-hack to avoid `lock against myself' panic. It is not the real > fix! > > The ufs_link() assumes that vnode is not unlocked and tries to lock it > in certain case. Because union_link calls VOP_LINK after locking vnode, > vn_lock in ufs_link causes above panic. > > Currently, I don't know the real fix for a locking violation in > union_link, but I think it is important to avoid panic. > > A vnode is unlocked before calling VOP_LINK and is locked after it if > the vnode is not union fs. Even though panic went away, the process > that access the union fs in which link was made will hang-up. > > Hang-up can be easily reproduced by following operation: > > mount -t union a b > cd b > ln foo bar > ls > > Revision Changes Path > 1.24 +15 -2 src/sys/miscfs/union/union_vnops.c >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SV4.3.95.970416144928.13445B-100000>