On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 2:22 PM NeilBrown <neil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi, Hi Neil, > did anyone have a chance to look at these - no replies and they don't > appear in linux-next ?? Sorry, these patches are not in my mailbox for some reason I don't know... I guess I missed these ones. I will check and apply the patches now. Thanks. > > Thanks, > NeilBrown > > > On Mon, 09 Jun 2025, NeilBrown wrote: > > I am working towards making some changes to how locking is managed for > > directory operations. Prior to attempting to land these changes I am > > reviewing code that requests directory operations and cleaning up things > > that might cause me problems later. > > > > These 4 patches are the result of my review of smb/server. Note that > > patch 3 fixes what appears to be a real deadlock that should be trivial > > to hit if the client can actually set the flag which, as mentioned in > > the patch, can trigger the deadlock. > > > > Patch 1 is trivial but the others deserve careful review by someone who > > knows the code. I think they are correct, but I've been wrong before. > > > > Thanks, > > NeilBrown > > > > [PATCH 1/4] smb/server: use lookup_one_unlocked() > > [PATCH 2/4] smb/server: simplify ksmbd_vfs_kern_path_locked() > > [PATCH 3/4] smb/server: avoid deadlock when linking with > > [PATCH 4/4] smb/server: add ksmbd_vfs_kern_path() > > > > >
