Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> writes: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: >> >> It's very much _not_ just overlayfs being pathological - that it certainly >> is, >> but the problem is much wider. > > Al, can you take a look at my two patches, and see if you agree that > they fix it, though?
The original deadlock occurred because of some code path locking the superblock followed by trying to acquire the af_unix readlock while unix_bind did the same in the opposite order (by doing kern_path_create with the readlock held). If unix_bind doesn't share a lock with the receive routines anymore, this obviously can't happen anymore. The other problem situation is one where a lock on someting can be acquired both by kern_path_create and a mknod operation and the readlock is taken in between. Because that sits in between the kern_path_create and the mknod, it can block the thread which got a certain lock via kern_path_create because the one which is about to try to acquire it via mknod got the readlock first. This obviously can't happen anymore the when the original 'acquire readlock (now bindlock) first' is restored.
