All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: virtio-fs@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: miklos@szeredi.hu, stefanha@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com,
	dgilbert@redhat.com
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] virtiofsd: Release file locks using F_UNLCK
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 15:55:40 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191115205543.1816-2-vgoyal@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191115205543.1816-1-vgoyal@redhat.com>

We are emulating posix locks for guest using open file description locks
in virtiofsd. When any of the fd is closed in guest, we find associated
OFD lock fd (if there is one) and close it to release all the locks.

Assumption here is that there is no other thread using lo_inode_plock
structure or plock->fd, hence it is safe to do so.

But now we are about to introduce blocking variant of locks (SETLKW),
and that means we might be waiting to a lock to be available and
using plock->fd. And that means there are still users of plock structure.

So release locks using fcntl(SETLK, F_UNLCK) instead and plock will
be freed later.

Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
---
 contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c b/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
index bc214df0c7..028e7da273 100644
--- a/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
+++ b/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
@@ -936,6 +936,14 @@ static void put_shared(struct lo_data *lo, struct lo_inode *inode)
 	}
 }
 
+static void release_plock(gpointer data)
+{
+	struct lo_inode_plock *plock = data;
+
+	close(plock->fd);
+	free(plock);
+}
+
 /* Increments nlookup and caller must release refcount using
  * lo_inode_put(&parent).
  */
@@ -994,7 +1002,8 @@ static int lo_do_lookup(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t parent, const char *name,
 		inode->key.ino = e->attr.st_ino;
 		inode->key.dev = e->attr.st_dev;
 		pthread_mutex_init(&inode->plock_mutex, NULL);
-		inode->posix_locks = g_hash_table_new(g_direct_hash, g_direct_equal);
+		inode->posix_locks = g_hash_table_new_full(g_direct_hash,
+					g_direct_equal, NULL, release_plock);
 
 		get_shared(lo, inode);
 
@@ -1436,9 +1445,6 @@ static void unref_inode(struct lo_data *lo, struct lo_inode *inode, uint64_t n)
 	if (!inode->nlookup) {
 		lo_map_remove(&lo->ino_map, inode->fuse_ino);
                 g_hash_table_remove(lo->inodes, &inode->key);
-		if (g_hash_table_size(inode->posix_locks)) {
-			fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_WARNING, "Hash table is not empty\n");
-		}
 		g_hash_table_destroy(inode->posix_locks);
 		pthread_mutex_destroy(&inode->plock_mutex);
 
@@ -1868,6 +1874,7 @@ static struct lo_inode_plock *lookup_create_plock_ctx(struct lo_data *lo,
 	plock->fd = fd;
 	g_hash_table_insert(inode->posix_locks,
 			    GUINT_TO_POINTER(plock->lock_owner), plock);
+	fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_DEBUG, "lookup_create_plock_ctx(): Inserted element in posix_locks hash table with value pointer %p\n", plock);
 	return plock;
 }
 
@@ -2046,6 +2053,7 @@ static void lo_flush(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino, struct fuse_file_info *fi)
 	(void) ino;
 	struct lo_inode *inode;
 	struct lo_inode_plock *plock;
+	struct flock flock;
 
 	inode = lo_inode(req, ino);
 	if (!inode) {
@@ -2058,14 +2066,16 @@ static void lo_flush(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino, struct fuse_file_info *fi)
 	plock = g_hash_table_lookup(inode->posix_locks,
 				    GUINT_TO_POINTER(fi->lock_owner));
 	if (plock) {
-		g_hash_table_remove(inode->posix_locks,
-				    GUINT_TO_POINTER(fi->lock_owner));
 		/*
-		 * We had used open() for locks and had only one fd. So
-		 * closing this fd should release all OFD locks.
+		 * An fd is being closed. For posix locks, this means
+		 * drop all the associated locks.
 		 */
-		close(plock->fd);
-		free(plock);
+		memset(&flock, 0, sizeof(struct flock));
+		flock.l_type = F_UNLCK;
+		flock.l_whence = SEEK_SET;
+		/* Unlock whole file */
+		flock.l_start = flock.l_len = 0;
+		fcntl(plock->fd, F_SETLK, &flock);
 	}
 	pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
 
-- 
2.20.1



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: virtio-fs@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: miklos@szeredi.hu, vgoyal@redhat.com
Subject: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH 1/4] virtiofsd: Release file locks using F_UNLCK
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 15:55:40 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191115205543.1816-2-vgoyal@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191115205543.1816-1-vgoyal@redhat.com>

We are emulating posix locks for guest using open file description locks
in virtiofsd. When any of the fd is closed in guest, we find associated
OFD lock fd (if there is one) and close it to release all the locks.

Assumption here is that there is no other thread using lo_inode_plock
structure or plock->fd, hence it is safe to do so.

But now we are about to introduce blocking variant of locks (SETLKW),
and that means we might be waiting to a lock to be available and
using plock->fd. And that means there are still users of plock structure.

So release locks using fcntl(SETLK, F_UNLCK) instead and plock will
be freed later.

Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
---
 contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c b/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
index bc214df0c7..028e7da273 100644
--- a/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
+++ b/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
@@ -936,6 +936,14 @@ static void put_shared(struct lo_data *lo, struct lo_inode *inode)
 	}
 }
 
+static void release_plock(gpointer data)
+{
+	struct lo_inode_plock *plock = data;
+
+	close(plock->fd);
+	free(plock);
+}
+
 /* Increments nlookup and caller must release refcount using
  * lo_inode_put(&parent).
  */
@@ -994,7 +1002,8 @@ static int lo_do_lookup(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t parent, const char *name,
 		inode->key.ino = e->attr.st_ino;
 		inode->key.dev = e->attr.st_dev;
 		pthread_mutex_init(&inode->plock_mutex, NULL);
-		inode->posix_locks = g_hash_table_new(g_direct_hash, g_direct_equal);
+		inode->posix_locks = g_hash_table_new_full(g_direct_hash,
+					g_direct_equal, NULL, release_plock);
 
 		get_shared(lo, inode);
 
@@ -1436,9 +1445,6 @@ static void unref_inode(struct lo_data *lo, struct lo_inode *inode, uint64_t n)
 	if (!inode->nlookup) {
 		lo_map_remove(&lo->ino_map, inode->fuse_ino);
                 g_hash_table_remove(lo->inodes, &inode->key);
-		if (g_hash_table_size(inode->posix_locks)) {
-			fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_WARNING, "Hash table is not empty\n");
-		}
 		g_hash_table_destroy(inode->posix_locks);
 		pthread_mutex_destroy(&inode->plock_mutex);
 
@@ -1868,6 +1874,7 @@ static struct lo_inode_plock *lookup_create_plock_ctx(struct lo_data *lo,
 	plock->fd = fd;
 	g_hash_table_insert(inode->posix_locks,
 			    GUINT_TO_POINTER(plock->lock_owner), plock);
+	fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_DEBUG, "lookup_create_plock_ctx(): Inserted element in posix_locks hash table with value pointer %p\n", plock);
 	return plock;
 }
 
@@ -2046,6 +2053,7 @@ static void lo_flush(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino, struct fuse_file_info *fi)
 	(void) ino;
 	struct lo_inode *inode;
 	struct lo_inode_plock *plock;
+	struct flock flock;
 
 	inode = lo_inode(req, ino);
 	if (!inode) {
@@ -2058,14 +2066,16 @@ static void lo_flush(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino, struct fuse_file_info *fi)
 	plock = g_hash_table_lookup(inode->posix_locks,
 				    GUINT_TO_POINTER(fi->lock_owner));
 	if (plock) {
-		g_hash_table_remove(inode->posix_locks,
-				    GUINT_TO_POINTER(fi->lock_owner));
 		/*
-		 * We had used open() for locks and had only one fd. So
-		 * closing this fd should release all OFD locks.
+		 * An fd is being closed. For posix locks, this means
+		 * drop all the associated locks.
 		 */
-		close(plock->fd);
-		free(plock);
+		memset(&flock, 0, sizeof(struct flock));
+		flock.l_type = F_UNLCK;
+		flock.l_whence = SEEK_SET;
+		/* Unlock whole file */
+		flock.l_start = flock.l_len = 0;
+		fcntl(plock->fd, F_SETLK, &flock);
 	}
 	pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
 
-- 
2.20.1


  reply	other threads:[~2019-11-15 21:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-15 20:55 [PATCH 0/4] [RFC] virtiofsd, vhost-user-fs: Add support for notification queue Vivek Goyal
2019-11-15 20:55 ` [Virtio-fs] " Vivek Goyal
2019-11-15 20:55 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2019-11-15 20:55   ` [Virtio-fs] [PATCH 1/4] virtiofsd: Release file locks using F_UNLCK Vivek Goyal
2019-11-22 10:07   ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2019-11-22 10:07     ` [Virtio-fs] " Stefan Hajnoczi
2019-11-22 13:45     ` Vivek Goyal
2019-11-22 13:45       ` [Virtio-fs] " Vivek Goyal
2019-11-15 20:55 ` [PATCH 2/4] virtiofd: Create a notification queue Vivek Goyal
2019-11-15 20:55   ` [Virtio-fs] " Vivek Goyal
2019-11-22 10:19   ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2019-11-22 10:19     ` [Virtio-fs] " Stefan Hajnoczi
2019-11-22 14:47     ` Vivek Goyal
2019-11-22 14:47       ` [Virtio-fs] " Vivek Goyal
2019-11-22 17:29       ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2019-11-22 17:29         ` [Virtio-fs] " Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2019-11-15 20:55 ` [PATCH 3/4] virtiofsd: Specify size of notification buffer using config space Vivek Goyal
2019-11-15 20:55   ` [Virtio-fs] " Vivek Goyal
2019-11-22 10:33   ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2019-11-22 10:33     ` [Virtio-fs] " Stefan Hajnoczi
2019-11-25 14:57     ` Vivek Goyal
2019-11-25 14:57       ` [Virtio-fs] " Vivek Goyal
2019-11-15 20:55 ` [PATCH 4/4] virtiofsd: Implement blocking posix locks Vivek Goyal
2019-11-15 20:55   ` [Virtio-fs] " Vivek Goyal
2019-11-22 10:53   ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2019-11-22 10:53     ` [Virtio-fs] " Stefan Hajnoczi
2019-11-25 15:38     ` Vivek Goyal
2019-11-22 17:47   ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2019-11-22 17:47     ` [Virtio-fs] " Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2019-11-25 15:44     ` Vivek Goyal
2019-11-26 13:02       ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2019-11-27 19:08         ` Vivek Goyal
2019-12-09 11:06           ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert

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=20191115205543.1816-2-vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \
    --cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
    --cc=virtio-fs@redhat.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.