From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 25 12:16:31 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B11A106566B; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:16:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098058FC21; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:16:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89E6746C1E; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:16:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:16:30 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Daichi GOTO In-Reply-To: <200804250953.m3P9rrpd011741@repoman.freebsd.org> Message-ID: <20080425131229.C80552@fledge.watson.org> References: <200804250953.m3P9rrpd011741@repoman.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/fs/unionfs union_subr.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:16:31 -0000 On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Daichi GOTO wrote: > daichi 2008-04-25 09:53:52 UTC > > FreeBSD src repository > > Modified files: > sys/fs/unionfs union_subr.c > Log: > o Improved unix socket connection issue > fixed: kern/118346 > > PR: kern/118346 > Submitted by: Masanori OZAWA (ozawa@ongs.co.jp) > MFC after: 1 week Goto-san, Per my earlier e-mail, and assuming I understand correctly, I feel not only will this lead to new panics (due to dangling socket pointers and incomplete garbage collection), but it will also lead to possibly incorrect semantics for unionfs (upper layers can write to objects readable via the lower layer). Some parts of this patch are fine, but the copying of v_socket pointers between layers is not correct. Please consider backing that part of the change out. Thanks, Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge