All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Can ovl_drop_write() be called earlier in ovl_dentry_open()
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 17:51:32 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegsaZvTuSu3WBO8jABA1bA4VJuNEK30dCdNQGrZe68CqSg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16823.1433173503@warthog.procyon.org.uk>

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:45 PM, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:
>
>> > In ovl_dentry_open(), ovl_drop_write() is called after vfs_open() - but is
>> > this actually necessary?  Can't we just drop it post-copyup?  After all,
>> > that's all we wanted the write lock for, right?
>>
>> Hmm,  that could result in a race where remount r/o of upper fs comes
>> in between copy-up and vfs_open() so copy-up succeeds but the actual
>> open fails.  It's harmless, though, and not  very likely.  So I guess
>> your patch is OK.
>
> That race is there anyway if there's no copy up, right?

No.  The race I'm talking about is that with your patch it's possible
that the file will be copied up, but open will return -EROFS.

Without your patch, that is not possible since holding write counter
for the mnt over both the copy-up and the open ensures that the
filesystem cannot become read-only in the middle.

So your patch changes behavior, but the new behavior is acceptable,
because there's no major change in semantics (it should only be
detectable by the increased disk usage in the rare case of the failed
open).

Thanks,
Miklos

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-01 15:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-01 13:52 David Howells
2015-06-01 14:21 ` [PATCH] overlay: Call ovl_drop_write() " David Howells
2015-06-01 14:22 ` Can ovl_drop_write() be called " Miklos Szeredi
2015-06-01 15:45 ` David Howells
2015-06-01 15:51   ` Miklos Szeredi [this message]
2015-06-01 15:53   ` David Howells

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=CAJfpegsaZvTuSu3WBO8jABA1bA4VJuNEK30dCdNQGrZe68CqSg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=miklos@szeredi.hu \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --subject='Re: Can ovl_drop_write() be called earlier in ovl_dentry_open()' \
    /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

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.