From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Eric Ren <zren@suse.com>
Cc: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [RFC] Should we revert commit "ocfs2: take inode lock in ocfs2_iop_set/get_acl()"? or other ideas?
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:20:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161028062056.GA9994@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1476854382-28101-1-git-send-email-zren@suse.com>
Hi Eric,
I've added linux-fsdevel to the cc list as this should get a bit
broader attention.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 01:19:40PM +0800, Eric Ren wrote:
> Mostly, we can avoid recursive locking by writing code carefully. However, as
> the deadlock issues have proved out, it's very hard to handle the routines
> that are called directly by vfs. For instance:
>
> const struct inode_operations ocfs2_file_iops = {
> .permission = ocfs2_permission,
> .get_acl = ocfs2_iop_get_acl,
> .set_acl = ocfs2_iop_set_acl,
> };
>
>
> ocfs2_permission() and ocfs2_iop_get/set_acl() both call ocfs2_inode_lock().
> The problem is that the call chain of ocfs2_permission() includes *_acl().
What do you actually protect in ocfs2_permission? It's a trivial
wrapper around generic_permission which just looks at the VFS inode.
I think the right fix is to remove ocfs2_permission entirely and use
the default VFS implementation. That both solves your locking problem,
and it will also get you RCU lookup instead of dropping out of
RCU mode all the time.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Eric Ren <zren@suse.com>
Cc: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [RFC] Should we revert commit "ocfs2: take inode lock in ocfs2_iop_set/get_acl()"? or other ideas?
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:20:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161028062056.GA9994@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1476854382-28101-1-git-send-email-zren@suse.com>
Hi Eric,
I've added linux-fsdevel to the cc list as this should get a bit
broader attention.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 01:19:40PM +0800, Eric Ren wrote:
> Mostly, we can avoid recursive locking by writing code carefully. However, as
> the deadlock issues have proved out, it's very hard to handle the routines
> that are called directly by vfs. For instance:
>
> const struct inode_operations ocfs2_file_iops = {
> .permission = ocfs2_permission,
> .get_acl = ocfs2_iop_get_acl,
> .set_acl = ocfs2_iop_set_acl,
> };
>
>
> ocfs2_permission() and ocfs2_iop_get/set_acl() both call ocfs2_inode_lock().
> The problem is that the call chain of ocfs2_permission() includes *_acl().
What do you actually protect in ocfs2_permission? It's a trivial
wrapper around generic_permission which just looks at the VFS inode.
I think the right fix is to remove ocfs2_permission entirely and use
the default VFS implementation. That both solves your locking problem,
and it will also get you RCU lookup instead of dropping out of
RCU mode all the time.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-28 6:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-19 5:19 [Ocfs2-devel] [RFC] Should we revert commit "ocfs2: take inode lock in ocfs2_iop_set/get_acl()"? or other ideas? Eric Ren
2016-10-19 5:19 ` [Ocfs2-devel] [DRAFT 1/2] ocfs2/dlmglue: keep track of the processes who take/put a cluster lock Eric Ren
2016-10-19 5:19 ` [Ocfs2-devel] [DRAFT 2/2] ocfs2: fix deadlock caused by recursive cluster locking Eric Ren
2016-10-31 10:55 ` piaojun
2016-11-01 1:45 ` Eric Ren
2016-11-10 10:49 ` piaojun
2016-11-11 1:56 ` Eric Ren
2016-11-14 5:42 ` piaojun
2016-11-14 10:03 ` Eric Ren
2016-11-15 2:13 ` Eric Ren
2016-11-09 4:55 ` Eric Ren
2016-10-19 6:57 ` [Ocfs2-devel] [RFC] Should we revert commit "ocfs2: take inode lock in ocfs2_iop_set/get_acl()"? or other ideas? Junxiao Bi
2016-10-19 7:46 ` Eric Ren
2016-10-24 9:13 ` Eric Ren
2016-10-28 6:20 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2016-10-28 6:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-10-28 7:06 ` Eric Ren
2016-10-28 7:06 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Eric Ren
2016-11-09 4:47 ` Eric Ren
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161028062056.GA9994@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com \
--cc=zren@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.