[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ocfs2: dlmfs: not clear USER_LOCK_ATTACHED when destroy lock

[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ocfs2: dlmfs: not clear USER_LOCK_ATTACHED when destroy lock

[Junxiao Bi via Ocfs2-devel]

The following function is the only place that check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED,
this flag is set when lock request is granted through user_bast() and
only the following function will clear it.

Checking of this flag here is to make sure ocfs2_dlm_unlock is not
issued if this lock is never granted. For example, lock file is created
and then get removed, open file never happens.

Clearing the flag here is not necessary because this is the only function
that checks it, if another flow is executing user_dlm_destroy_lock(), it
will bail out at the beginning because of USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN and never
check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED.
Drop the clear, so we don't need take care it for the following
error handling patch.

int user_dlm_destroy_lock(struct user_lock_res *lockres)
{
    ...

    status = 0;
    if (!(lockres->l_flags & USER_LOCK_ATTACHED)) {
        spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
        goto bail;
    }

    lockres->l_flags &= ~USER_LOCK_ATTACHED;
    lockres->l_flags |= USER_LOCK_BUSY;
    spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);

	status = ocfs2_dlm_unlock(conn, &lockres->l_lksb, DLM_LKF_VALBLK);
    if (status) {
        user_log_dlm_error("ocfs2_dlm_unlock", status, lockres);
        goto bail;
    }
	...
}

Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@oracle.com>
---
 fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c
index 29f183a15798..af0be612589c 100644
--- a/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c
+++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c
@@ -619,7 +619,6 @@ int user_dlm_destroy_lock(struct user_lock_res *lockres)
 		goto bail;
 	}
 
-	lockres->l_flags &= ~USER_LOCK_ATTACHED;
 	lockres->l_flags |= USER_LOCK_BUSY;
 	spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
 
-- 
2.24.3 (Apple Git-128)


_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel

[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/2] ocfs2: dlmfs: fix error handling of user_dlm_destroy_lock

[Junxiao Bi via Ocfs2-devel]

When user_dlm_destroy_lock failed, it didn't clean up the flags it set
before exit. For USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN, if this function fails because
of lock is still in used, next time when unlink invokes this function,
it will return succeed, and then unlink will remove inode and dentry if
lock is not in used(file closed), but the dlm lock is still linked in dlm
lock resource, then when bast come in, it will trigger a panic due to
user-after-free. See the following panic call trace.
To fix this, USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN should be reverted if fail. And also
error should be returned if USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN is set to let user know
that unlink fail.

For the case of ocfs2_dlm_unlock failure, besides USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN,
USER_LOCK_BUSY is also required to be cleared.
Even though spin lock is released in between, but USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN
is still set, for USER_LOCK_BUSY, if before every place that waits on
this flag, USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN is checked to bail out, that will make
sure no flow waits on the busy flag set by user_dlm_destroy_lock(),
then we can simplely revert USER_LOCK_BUSY when ocfs2_dlm_unlock fails.
Fix user_dlm_cluster_lock() which is the only function not following this.

[  941.336392] (python,26174,16):dlmfs_unlink:562 ERROR: unlink
004fb0000060000b5a90b8c847b72e1, error -16 from destroy
[  989.757536] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[  989.757709] kernel BUG at fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c:173!
[  989.757876] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP
[  989.758027] Modules linked in: ksplice_2zhuk2jr_ib_ipoib_new(O)
ksplice_2zhuk2jr(O) mptctl mptbase xen_netback xen_blkback xen_gntalloc
xen_gntdev xen_evtchn cdc_ether usbnet mii ocfs2 jbd2 rpcsec_gss_krb5
auth_rpcgss nfsv4 nfsv3 nfs_acl nfs fscache lockd grace ocfs2_dlmfs
ocfs2_stack_o2cb ocfs2_dlm ocfs2_nodemanager ocfs2_stackglue configfs bnx2fc
fcoe libfcoe libfc scsi_transport_fc sunrpc ipmi_devintf bridge stp llc
rds_rdma rds bonding ib_sdp ib_ipoib rdma_ucm ib_ucm ib_uverbs ib_umad
rdma_cm ib_cm iw_cm falcon_lsm_serviceable(PE) falcon_nf_netcontain(PE)
mlx4_vnic falcon_kal(E) falcon_lsm_pinned_13402(E) mlx4_ib ib_sa ib_mad
ib_core ib_addr xenfs xen_privcmd dm_multipath iTCO_wdt iTCO_vendor_support
pcspkr sb_edac edac_core i2c_i801 lpc_ich mfd_core ipmi_ssif i2c_core ipmi_si
ipmi_msghandler
[  989.760686]  ioatdma sg ext3 jbd mbcache sd_mod ahci libahci ixgbe dca ptp
pps_core vxlan udp_tunnel ip6_udp_tunnel megaraid_sas mlx4_core crc32c_intel
be2iscsi bnx2i cnic uio cxgb4i cxgb4 cxgb3i libcxgbi ipv6 cxgb3 mdio
libiscsi_tcp qla4xxx iscsi_boot_sysfs libiscsi scsi_transport_iscsi wmi
dm_mirror dm_region_hash dm_log dm_mod [last unloaded:
ksplice_2zhuk2jr_ib_ipoib_old]
[  989.761987] CPU: 10 PID: 19102 Comm: dlm_thread Tainted: P           OE
4.1.12-124.57.1.el6uek.x86_64 #2
[  989.762290] Hardware name: Oracle Corporation ORACLE SERVER
X5-2/ASM,MOTHERBOARD,1U, BIOS 30350100 06/17/2021
[  989.762599] task: ffff880178af6200 ti: ffff88017f7c8000 task.ti:
ffff88017f7c8000
[  989.762848] RIP: e030:[<ffffffffc07d4316>]  [<ffffffffc07d4316>]
__user_dlm_queue_lockres.part.4+0x76/0x80 [ocfs2_dlmfs]
[  989.763185] RSP: e02b:ffff88017f7cbcb8  EFLAGS: 00010246
[  989.763353] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff880174d48008 RCX:
0000000000000003
[  989.763565] RDX: 0000000000120012 RSI: 0000000000000003 RDI:
ffff880174d48170
[  989.763778] RBP: ffff88017f7cbcc8 R08: ffff88021f4293b0 R09:
0000000000000000
[  989.763991] R10: ffff880179c8c000 R11: 0000000000000003 R12:
ffff880174d48008
[  989.764204] R13: 0000000000000003 R14: ffff880179c8c000 R15:
ffff88021db7a000
[  989.764422] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff880247480000(0000)
knlGS:ffff880247480000
[  989.764685] CS:  e033 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
[  989.764865] CR2: ffff8000007f6800 CR3: 0000000001ae0000 CR4:
0000000000042660
[  989.765081] Stack:
[  989.765167]  0000000000000003 ffff880174d48040 ffff88017f7cbd18
ffffffffc07d455f
[  989.765442]  ffff88017f7cbd88 ffffffff816fb639 ffff88017f7cbd38
ffff8800361b5600
[  989.765717]  ffff88021db7a000 ffff88021f429380 0000000000000003
ffffffffc0453020
[  989.765991] Call Trace:
[  989.766093]  [<ffffffffc07d455f>] user_bast+0x5f/0xf0 [ocfs2_dlmfs]
[  989.766287]  [<ffffffff816fb639>] ? schedule_timeout+0x169/0x2d0
[  989.766475]  [<ffffffffc0453020>] ? o2dlm_lock_ast_wrapper+0x20/0x20
[ocfs2_stack_o2cb]
[  989.766738]  [<ffffffffc045303a>] o2dlm_blocking_ast_wrapper+0x1a/0x20
[ocfs2_stack_o2cb]
[  989.767010]  [<ffffffffc0864ec6>] dlm_do_local_bast+0x46/0xe0 [ocfs2_dlm]
[  989.767217]  [<ffffffffc084f5cc>] ? dlm_lockres_calc_usage+0x4c/0x60
[ocfs2_dlm]
[  989.767466]  [<ffffffffc08501f1>] dlm_thread+0xa31/0x1140 [ocfs2_dlm]
[  989.767662]  [<ffffffff816f78da>] ? __schedule+0x24a/0x810
[  989.767834]  [<ffffffff816f78ce>] ? __schedule+0x23e/0x810
[  989.768006]  [<ffffffff816f78da>] ? __schedule+0x24a/0x810
[  989.768178]  [<ffffffff816f78ce>] ? __schedule+0x23e/0x810
[  989.768349]  [<ffffffff816f78da>] ? __schedule+0x24a/0x810
[  989.768521]  [<ffffffff816f78ce>] ? __schedule+0x23e/0x810
[  989.768693]  [<ffffffff816f78da>] ? __schedule+0x24a/0x810
[  989.768893]  [<ffffffff816f78ce>] ? __schedule+0x23e/0x810
[  989.769067]  [<ffffffff816f78da>] ? __schedule+0x24a/0x810
[  989.769241]  [<ffffffff810ce4d0>] ? wait_woken+0x90/0x90
[  989.769411]  [<ffffffffc084f7c0>] ? dlm_kick_thread+0x80/0x80 [ocfs2_dlm]
[  989.769617]  [<ffffffff810a8bbb>] kthread+0xcb/0xf0
[  989.769774]  [<ffffffff816f78da>] ? __schedule+0x24a/0x810
[  989.769945]  [<ffffffff816f78da>] ? __schedule+0x24a/0x810
[  989.770117]  [<ffffffff810a8af0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x180/0x180
[  989.770321]  [<ffffffff816fdaa1>] ret_from_fork+0x61/0x90
[  989.770492]  [<ffffffff810a8af0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x180/0x180
[  989.770689] Code: d0 00 00 00 f0 45 7d c0 bf 00 20 00 00 48 89 83 c0 00 00
00 48 89 83 c8 00 00 00 e8 55 c1 8c c0 83 4b 04 10 48 83 c4 08 5b 5d c3 <0f>
0b 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 55 48 89 e5 41 55 41 54 53 48 83
[  989.771892] RIP  [<ffffffffc07d4316>]
__user_dlm_queue_lockres.part.4+0x76/0x80 [ocfs2_dlmfs]
[  989.772174]  RSP <ffff88017f7cbcb8>
[  989.772704] ---[ end trace ebd1e38cebcc93a8 ]---
[  989.772907] Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception
[  989.773173] Kernel Offset: disabled

Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@oracle.com>
---
 fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c
index af0be612589c..617c92e7b925 100644
--- a/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c
+++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c
@@ -433,6 +433,11 @@ int user_dlm_cluster_lock(struct user_lock_res *lockres,
 	}
 
 	spin_lock(&lockres->l_lock);
+	if (lockres->l_flags & USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN) {
+		spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
+		status = -EAGAIN;
+		goto bail;
+	}
 
 	/* We only compare against the currently granted level
 	 * here. If the lock is blocked waiting on a downconvert,
@@ -595,7 +600,7 @@ int user_dlm_destroy_lock(struct user_lock_res *lockres)
 	spin_lock(&lockres->l_lock);
 	if (lockres->l_flags & USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN) {
 		spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
-		return 0;
+		goto bail;
 	}
 
 	lockres->l_flags |= USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN;
@@ -609,12 +614,17 @@ int user_dlm_destroy_lock(struct user_lock_res *lockres)
 	}
 
 	if (lockres->l_ro_holders || lockres->l_ex_holders) {
+		lockres->l_flags &= ~USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN;
 		spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
 		goto bail;
 	}
 
 	status = 0;
 	if (!(lockres->l_flags & USER_LOCK_ATTACHED)) {
+		/*
+		 * lock is never requested, leave USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN set
+		 * to avoid new lock request coming in.
+		 */
 		spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
 		goto bail;
 	}
@@ -624,6 +634,10 @@ int user_dlm_destroy_lock(struct user_lock_res *lockres)
 
 	status = ocfs2_dlm_unlock(conn, &lockres->l_lksb, DLM_LKF_VALBLK);
 	if (status) {
+		spin_lock(&lockres->l_lock);
+		lockres->l_flags &= ~USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN;
+		lockres->l_flags &= ~USER_LOCK_BUSY;
+		spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
 		user_log_dlm_error("ocfs2_dlm_unlock", status, lockres);
 		goto bail;
 	}
-- 
2.24.3 (Apple Git-128)


_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ocfs2: dlmfs: not clear USER_LOCK_ATTACHED when destroy lock

[Joseph Qi via Ocfs2-devel]

On 5/11/22 7:22 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> The following function is the only place that check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED,
> this flag is set when lock request is granted through user_bast() and
> only the following function will clear it.
> 
user_ast?

> Checking of this flag here is to make sure ocfs2_dlm_unlock is not
> issued if this lock is never granted. For example, lock file is created
> and then get removed, open file never happens.
> 
> Clearing the flag here is not necessary because this is the only function
> that checks it, if another flow is executing user_dlm_destroy_lock(), it
> will bail out at the beginning because of USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN and never
> check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED.
> Drop the clear, so we don't need take care it for the following
> error handling patch.
> 
Seems it depends on initializing lockres every time, but it seems this
is not true for directory now.

Thanks,
Joseph

> int user_dlm_destroy_lock(struct user_lock_res *lockres)
> {
>     ...
> 
>     status = 0;
>     if (!(lockres->l_flags & USER_LOCK_ATTACHED)) {
>         spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
>         goto bail;
>     }
> 
>     lockres->l_flags &= ~USER_LOCK_ATTACHED;
>     lockres->l_flags |= USER_LOCK_BUSY;
>     spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
> 
> 	status = ocfs2_dlm_unlock(conn, &lockres->l_lksb, DLM_LKF_VALBLK);
>     if (status) {
>         user_log_dlm_error("ocfs2_dlm_unlock", status, lockres);
>         goto bail;
>     }
> 	...
> }
> 
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@oracle.com>
> ---
>  fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c
> index 29f183a15798..af0be612589c 100644
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c
> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c
> @@ -619,7 +619,6 @@ int user_dlm_destroy_lock(struct user_lock_res *lockres)
>  		goto bail;
>  	}
>  
> -	lockres->l_flags &= ~USER_LOCK_ATTACHED;
>  	lockres->l_flags |= USER_LOCK_BUSY;
>  	spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
>  

_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ocfs2: dlmfs: not clear USER_LOCK_ATTACHED when destroy lock

[Junxiao Bi via Ocfs2-devel]

On 5/12/22 7:05 PM, Joseph Qi wrote:

>
> On 5/11/22 7:22 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>> The following function is the only place that check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED,
>> this flag is set when lock request is granted through user_bast() and
>> only the following function will clear it.
>>
> user_ast?
Good catch, that's a typo, should be user_ast.
>
>> Checking of this flag here is to make sure ocfs2_dlm_unlock is not
>> issued if this lock is never granted. For example, lock file is created
>> and then get removed, open file never happens.
>>
>> Clearing the flag here is not necessary because this is the only function
>> that checks it, if another flow is executing user_dlm_destroy_lock(), it
>> will bail out at the beginning because of USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN and never
>> check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED.
>> Drop the clear, so we don't need take care it for the following
>> error handling patch.
>>
> Seems it depends on initializing lockres every time, but it seems this
> is not true for directory now.

Sorry, i didn't get this. Can you elaborate this?

Thanks,

Junxiao.

>
> Thanks,
> Joseph
>
>> int user_dlm_destroy_lock(struct user_lock_res *lockres)
>> {
>>      ...
>>
>>      status = 0;
>>      if (!(lockres->l_flags & USER_LOCK_ATTACHED)) {
>>          spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
>>          goto bail;
>>      }
>>
>>      lockres->l_flags &= ~USER_LOCK_ATTACHED;
>>      lockres->l_flags |= USER_LOCK_BUSY;
>>      spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
>>
>> 	status = ocfs2_dlm_unlock(conn, &lockres->l_lksb, DLM_LKF_VALBLK);
>>      if (status) {
>>          user_log_dlm_error("ocfs2_dlm_unlock", status, lockres);
>>          goto bail;
>>      }
>> 	...
>> }
>>
>> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@oracle.com>
>> ---
>>   fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c | 1 -
>>   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c
>> index 29f183a15798..af0be612589c 100644
>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c
>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c
>> @@ -619,7 +619,6 @@ int user_dlm_destroy_lock(struct user_lock_res *lockres)
>>   		goto bail;
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	lockres->l_flags &= ~USER_LOCK_ATTACHED;
>>   	lockres->l_flags |= USER_LOCK_BUSY;
>>   	spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
>>   

_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ocfs2: dlmfs: not clear USER_LOCK_ATTACHED when destroy lock

[Joseph Qi via Ocfs2-devel]

On 5/14/22 12:27 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> On 5/12/22 7:05 PM, Joseph Qi wrote:
> 
>>
>> On 5/11/22 7:22 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>>> The following function is the only place that check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED,
>>> this flag is set when lock request is granted through user_bast() and
>>> only the following function will clear it.
>>>
>> user_ast?
> Good catch, that's a typo, should be user_ast.
>>
>>> Checking of this flag here is to make sure ocfs2_dlm_unlock is not
>>> issued if this lock is never granted. For example, lock file is created
>>> and then get removed, open file never happens.
>>>
>>> Clearing the flag here is not necessary because this is the only function
>>> that checks it, if another flow is executing user_dlm_destroy_lock(), it
>>> will bail out at the beginning because of USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN and never
>>> check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED.
>>> Drop the clear, so we don't need take care it for the following
>>> error handling patch.
>>>
>> Seems it depends on initializing lockres every time, but it seems this
>> is not true for directory now.
> 
> Sorry, i didn't get this. Can you elaborate this?
> 
lockres may be reused and if we don't reinitialized, the left flag can
cause unexpected behavior.

Thanks,
Joseph

_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ocfs2: dlmfs: not clear USER_LOCK_ATTACHED when destroy lock

[Junxiao Bi via Ocfs2-devel]

On 5/15/22 7:57 AM, Joseph Qi wrote:
>
> On 5/14/22 12:27 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>> On 5/12/22 7:05 PM, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/11/22 7:22 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>>>> The following function is the only place that check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED,
>>>> this flag is set when lock request is granted through user_bast() and
>>>> only the following function will clear it.
>>>>
>>> user_ast?
>> Good catch, that's a typo, should be user_ast.
>>>> Checking of this flag here is to make sure ocfs2_dlm_unlock is not
>>>> issued if this lock is never granted. For example, lock file is created
>>>> and then get removed, open file never happens.
>>>>
>>>> Clearing the flag here is not necessary because this is the only function
>>>> that checks it, if another flow is executing user_dlm_destroy_lock(), it
>>>> will bail out at the beginning because of USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN and never
>>>> check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED.
>>>> Drop the clear, so we don't need take care it for the following
>>>> error handling patch.
>>>>
>>> Seems it depends on initializing lockres every time, but it seems this
>>> is not true for directory now.
>> Sorry, i didn't get this. Can you elaborate this?
>>
> lockres may be reused and if we don't reinitialized, the left flag can
> cause unexpected behavior.

I don't know how it could get reused since it's going to be removed. 
Anyway USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN is still set in lockres. All the flow will 
bail out because of this flag.

Thanks,

Junxiao.

>
> Thanks,
> Joseph

_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ocfs2: dlmfs: not clear USER_LOCK_ATTACHED when destroy lock

[Joseph Qi via Ocfs2-devel]

On 5/17/22 12:30 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> 
> On 5/15/22 7:57 AM, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>
>> On 5/14/22 12:27 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>>> On 5/12/22 7:05 PM, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/11/22 7:22 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>>>>> The following function is the only place that check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED,
>>>>> this flag is set when lock request is granted through user_bast() and
>>>>> only the following function will clear it.
>>>>>
>>>> user_ast?
>>> Good catch, that's a typo, should be user_ast.
>>>>> Checking of this flag here is to make sure ocfs2_dlm_unlock is not
>>>>> issued if this lock is never granted. For example, lock file is created
>>>>> and then get removed, open file never happens.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearing the flag here is not necessary because this is the only function
>>>>> that checks it, if another flow is executing user_dlm_destroy_lock(), it
>>>>> will bail out at the beginning because of USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN and never
>>>>> check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED.
>>>>> Drop the clear, so we don't need take care it for the following
>>>>> error handling patch.
>>>>>
>>>> Seems it depends on initializing lockres every time, but it seems this
>>>> is not true for directory now.
>>> Sorry, i didn't get this. Can you elaborate this?
>>>
>> lockres may be reused and if we don't reinitialized, the left flag can
>> cause unexpected behavior.
> 
> I don't know how it could get reused since it's going to be removed. Anyway USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN is still set in lockres. All the flow will bail out because of this flag.
> 

dlmfs_inode_private is allocated from kmem_cache.
The case I'm thinking about is, calling user_dlm_destroy_lock() without
a valid ast comming before. So checking USER_LOCK_ATTACHED here may be
incorrect.
But look more closer, it seems that lockres is unused for directories.
So it won't be a real issue.
Could you please send a new version with update description?

Thanks,
Joseph

_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ocfs2: dlmfs: not clear USER_LOCK_ATTACHED when destroy lock

[Junxiao Bi via Ocfs2-devel]

On 5/16/22 6:58 PM, Joseph Qi wrote:
>
> On 5/17/22 12:30 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>> On 5/15/22 7:57 AM, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 12:27 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/22 7:05 PM, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/11/22 7:22 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>>>>>> The following function is the only place that check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED,
>>>>>> this flag is set when lock request is granted through user_bast() and
>>>>>> only the following function will clear it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> user_ast?
>>>> Good catch, that's a typo, should be user_ast.
>>>>>> Checking of this flag here is to make sure ocfs2_dlm_unlock is not
>>>>>> issued if this lock is never granted. For example, lock file is created
>>>>>> and then get removed, open file never happens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearing the flag here is not necessary because this is the only function
>>>>>> that checks it, if another flow is executing user_dlm_destroy_lock(), it
>>>>>> will bail out at the beginning because of USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN and never
>>>>>> check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED.
>>>>>> Drop the clear, so we don't need take care it for the following
>>>>>> error handling patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Seems it depends on initializing lockres every time, but it seems this
>>>>> is not true for directory now.
>>>> Sorry, i didn't get this. Can you elaborate this?
>>>>
>>> lockres may be reused and if we don't reinitialized, the left flag can
>>> cause unexpected behavior.
>> I don't know how it could get reused since it's going to be removed. Anyway USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN is still set in lockres. All the flow will bail out because of this flag.
>>
> dlmfs_inode_private is allocated from kmem_cache.
> The case I'm thinking about is, calling user_dlm_destroy_lock() without
> a valid ast comming before. So checking USER_LOCK_ATTACHED here may be
> incorrect.
> But look more closer, it seems that lockres is unused for directories.
> So it won't be a real issue.
Yes, lock is only for file, not direcotry.
> Could you please send a new version with update description?

Sorry, little confused, which part of description needs update?

Thanks,

Junxiao.

>
> Thanks,
> Joseph

_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ocfs2: dlmfs: not clear USER_LOCK_ATTACHED when destroy lock

[Joseph Qi via Ocfs2-devel]

On 5/18/22 12:12 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> 
> On 5/16/22 6:58 PM, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>
>> On 5/17/22 12:30 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>>> On 5/15/22 7:57 AM, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/22 12:27 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/22 7:05 PM, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/11/22 7:22 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>>>>>>> The following function is the only place that check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED,
>>>>>>> this flag is set when lock request is granted through user_bast() and
>>>>>>> only the following function will clear it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> user_ast?
>>>>> Good catch, that's a typo, should be user_ast.
>>>>>>> Checking of this flag here is to make sure ocfs2_dlm_unlock is not
>>>>>>> issued if this lock is never granted. For example, lock file is created
>>>>>>> and then get removed, open file never happens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clearing the flag here is not necessary because this is the only function
>>>>>>> that checks it, if another flow is executing user_dlm_destroy_lock(), it
>>>>>>> will bail out at the beginning because of USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN and never
>>>>>>> check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED.
>>>>>>> Drop the clear, so we don't need take care it for the following
>>>>>>> error handling patch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems it depends on initializing lockres every time, but it seems this
>>>>>> is not true for directory now.
>>>>> Sorry, i didn't get this. Can you elaborate this?
>>>>>
>>>> lockres may be reused and if we don't reinitialized, the left flag can
>>>> cause unexpected behavior.
>>> I don't know how it could get reused since it's going to be removed. Anyway USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN is still set in lockres. All the flow will bail out because of this flag.
>>>
>> dlmfs_inode_private is allocated from kmem_cache.
>> The case I'm thinking about is, calling user_dlm_destroy_lock() without
>> a valid ast comming before. So checking USER_LOCK_ATTACHED here may be
>> incorrect.
>> But look more closer, it seems that lockres is unused for directories.
>> So it won't be a real issue.
> Yes, lock is only for file, not direcotry.
>> Could you please send a new version with update description?
> 
> Sorry, little confused, which part of description needs update?
> 

The typo that user_ast() is for granting lock request. And better to include
the information we discussed above.

_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ocfs2: dlmfs: not clear USER_LOCK_ATTACHED when destroy lock

[Junxiao Bi via Ocfs2-devel]

On 5/17/22 6:54 PM, Joseph Qi wrote:
>
> On 5/18/22 12:12 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>> On 5/16/22 6:58 PM, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>> On 5/17/22 12:30 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>>>> On 5/15/22 7:57 AM, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/22 12:27 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/22 7:05 PM, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/11/22 7:22 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>>>>>>>> The following function is the only place that check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED,
>>>>>>>> this flag is set when lock request is granted through user_bast() and
>>>>>>>> only the following function will clear it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> user_ast?
>>>>>> Good catch, that's a typo, should be user_ast.
>>>>>>>> Checking of this flag here is to make sure ocfs2_dlm_unlock is not
>>>>>>>> issued if this lock is never granted. For example, lock file is created
>>>>>>>> and then get removed, open file never happens.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clearing the flag here is not necessary because this is the only function
>>>>>>>> that checks it, if another flow is executing user_dlm_destroy_lock(), it
>>>>>>>> will bail out at the beginning because of USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN and never
>>>>>>>> check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED.
>>>>>>>> Drop the clear, so we don't need take care it for the following
>>>>>>>> error handling patch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seems it depends on initializing lockres every time, but it seems this
>>>>>>> is not true for directory now.
>>>>>> Sorry, i didn't get this. Can you elaborate this?
>>>>>>
>>>>> lockres may be reused and if we don't reinitialized, the left flag can
>>>>> cause unexpected behavior.
>>>> I don't know how it could get reused since it's going to be removed. Anyway USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN is still set in lockres. All the flow will bail out because of this flag.
>>>>
>>> dlmfs_inode_private is allocated from kmem_cache.
>>> The case I'm thinking about is, calling user_dlm_destroy_lock() without
>>> a valid ast comming before. So checking USER_LOCK_ATTACHED here may be
>>> incorrect.
>>> But look more closer, it seems that lockres is unused for directories.
>>> So it won't be a real issue.
>> Yes, lock is only for file, not direcotry.
>>> Could you please send a new version with update description?
>> Sorry, little confused, which part of description needs update?
>>
> The typo that user_ast() is for granting lock request. And better to include
> the information we discussed above.

got it, will send a v2

Thanks,

Junxiao.


_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel