* [PATCH] ovl: use a dedicated semaphore for dir upperfile caching
@ 2021-01-01 20:12 Icenowy Zheng
2021-01-03 14:10 ` Amir Goldstein
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Icenowy Zheng @ 2021-01-01 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Miklos Szeredi, Amir Goldstein, Xiao Yang
Cc: linux-unionfs, linux-kernel, Icenowy Zheng, stable
The function ovl_dir_real_file() currently uses the semaphore of the
inode to synchronize write to the upperfile cache field.
However, this function will get called by ovl_ioctl_set_flags(), which
utilizes the inode semaphore too. In this case ovl_dir_real_file() will
try to claim a lock that is owned by a function in its call stack, which
won't get released before ovl_dir_real_file() returns.
Define a dedicated semaphore for the upperfile cache, so that the
deadlock won't happen.
Fixes: 61536bed2149 ("ovl: support [S|G]ETFLAGS and FS[S|G]ETXATTR ioctls for directories")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.10
Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>
---
fs/overlayfs/readdir.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c b/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
index 01620ebae1bd..f10701aabb71 100644
--- a/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
+++ b/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ struct ovl_dir_file {
struct list_head *cursor;
struct file *realfile;
struct file *upperfile;
+ struct semaphore upperfile_sem;
};
static struct ovl_cache_entry *ovl_cache_entry_from_node(struct rb_node *n)
@@ -883,7 +884,7 @@ struct file *ovl_dir_real_file(const struct file *file, bool want_upper)
ovl_path_upper(dentry, &upperpath);
realfile = ovl_dir_open_realfile(file, &upperpath);
- inode_lock(inode);
+ down(&od->upperfile_sem);
if (!od->upperfile) {
if (IS_ERR(realfile)) {
inode_unlock(inode);
@@ -896,7 +897,7 @@ struct file *ovl_dir_real_file(const struct file *file, bool want_upper)
fput(realfile);
realfile = od->upperfile;
}
- inode_unlock(inode);
+ up(&od->upperfile_sem);
}
}
@@ -959,6 +960,7 @@ static int ovl_dir_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
od->realfile = realfile;
od->is_real = ovl_dir_is_real(file->f_path.dentry);
od->is_upper = OVL_TYPE_UPPER(type);
+ sema_init(&od->upperfile_sem, 1);
file->private_data = od;
return 0;
--
2.28.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] ovl: use a dedicated semaphore for dir upperfile caching
2021-01-01 20:12 [PATCH] ovl: use a dedicated semaphore for dir upperfile caching Icenowy Zheng
@ 2021-01-03 14:10 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-01-04 7:28 ` Icenowy Zheng
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Amir Goldstein @ 2021-01-03 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Icenowy Zheng; +Cc: Miklos Szeredi, Xiao Yang, overlayfs, linux-kernel, stable
On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 10:12 PM Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io> wrote:
>
> The function ovl_dir_real_file() currently uses the semaphore of the
> inode to synchronize write to the upperfile cache field.
>
> However, this function will get called by ovl_ioctl_set_flags(), which
> utilizes the inode semaphore too. In this case ovl_dir_real_file() will
> try to claim a lock that is owned by a function in its call stack, which
> won't get released before ovl_dir_real_file() returns.
oops. I wondered why I didn't see any warnings on this from lockdep.
Ah! because the xfstest that exercises ovl_ioctl_set_flags() on directory,
generic/079, starts with an already upper dir.
And the xfstest that checks chattr+i on lower/upper files, overlay/040,
does not check chattr on dirs (ioctl on overlay dirs wasn't supported at
the time the test was written).
Would you be able to create a variant of test overlay/040 that also tests
chattr +i on lower/upper dirs to test your patch and confirm that the test
fails on master with the appropriate Kconfig debug options.
>
> Define a dedicated semaphore for the upperfile cache, so that the
> deadlock won't happen.
>
> Fixes: 61536bed2149 ("ovl: support [S|G]ETFLAGS and FS[S|G]ETXATTR ioctls for directories")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.10
> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>
> ---
> fs/overlayfs/readdir.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c b/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
> index 01620ebae1bd..f10701aabb71 100644
> --- a/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
> +++ b/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
> @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ struct ovl_dir_file {
> struct list_head *cursor;
> struct file *realfile;
> struct file *upperfile;
> + struct semaphore upperfile_sem;
mutex please
> };
>
> static struct ovl_cache_entry *ovl_cache_entry_from_node(struct rb_node *n)
> @@ -883,7 +884,7 @@ struct file *ovl_dir_real_file(const struct file *file, bool want_upper)
> ovl_path_upper(dentry, &upperpath);
> realfile = ovl_dir_open_realfile(file, &upperpath);
>
> - inode_lock(inode);
> + down(&od->upperfile_sem);
> if (!od->upperfile) {
> if (IS_ERR(realfile)) {
> inode_unlock(inode);
You missed this unlock
Thanks,
Amir.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] ovl: use a dedicated semaphore for dir upperfile caching
2021-01-03 14:10 ` Amir Goldstein
@ 2021-01-04 7:28 ` Icenowy Zheng
2021-01-04 8:35 ` Amir Goldstein
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Icenowy Zheng @ 2021-01-04 7:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Amir Goldstein; +Cc: Miklos Szeredi, Xiao Yang, overlayfs, linux-kernel, stable
在 2021-01-03星期日的 16:10 +0200，Amir Goldstein写道：
> On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 10:12 PM Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > The function ovl_dir_real_file() currently uses the semaphore of
> > the
> > inode to synchronize write to the upperfile cache field.
> >
> > However, this function will get called by ovl_ioctl_set_flags(),
> > which
> > utilizes the inode semaphore too. In this case ovl_dir_real_file()
> > will
> > try to claim a lock that is owned by a function in its call stack,
> > which
> > won't get released before ovl_dir_real_file() returns.
>
> oops. I wondered why I didn't see any warnings on this from lockdep.
> Ah! because the xfstest that exercises ovl_ioctl_set_flags() on
> directory,
> generic/079, starts with an already upper dir.
>
> And the xfstest that checks chattr+i on lower/upper files,
> overlay/040,
> does not check chattr on dirs (ioctl on overlay dirs wasn't supported
> at
> the time the test was written).
>
> Would you be able to create a variant of test overlay/040 that also
> tests
> chattr +i on lower/upper dirs to test your patch and confirm that the
> test
> fails on master with the appropriate Kconfig debug options.
https://gist.github.com/Icenowy/c7d8decb6812d6e5064d143c57281ad3
Here's a test that would break on master (I used linux-next/master for
test).
[ 246.521880] INFO: task chattr:715 blocked for more than 122 seconds.
[ 246.525659] Not tainted 5.11.0-rc1-next-20210104+ #20
[ 246.528498] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs"
disables this message.
[ 246.535076] task:chattr state:D stack:13736 pid: 715 ppid:
529 flags:0x00000000
[ 246.538923] Call Trace:
[ 246.540241] __schedule+0x2a9/0x820
[ 246.541986] schedule+0x56/0xc0
[ 246.543616] rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0x375/0x630
[ 246.545565] ovl_dir_real_file+0xc1/0x120
[ 246.547512] ovl_real_fdget+0x35/0x80
[ 246.549303] ovl_real_ioctl+0x26/0x90
[ 246.551050] ? mnt_drop_write+0x2c/0x70
[ 246.553068] ovl_ioctl_set_flags+0x93/0x110
[ 246.555407] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x7e/0xb0
[ 246.557175] do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
[ 246.558869] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 246.561057] RIP: 0033:0x7fe4a3830b67
[ 246.565799] RSP: 002b:00007ffe7ad504f8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX:
0000000000000010
[ 246.569438] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000001 RCX:
00007fe4a3830b67
[ 246.572061] RDX: 00007ffe7ad5050c RSI: 0000000040086602 RDI:
0000000000000003
[ 246.575509] RBP: 0000000000000003 R08: 0000000000000001 R09:
0000000000000000
[ 246.578932] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12:
0000000000000010
[ 246.581014] R13: 00007ffe7ad50810 R14: 0000000000000002 R15:
0000000000000001
[ 246.582818]
[ 246.582818] Showing all locks held in the system:
[ 246.584741] 1 lock held by khungtaskd/18:
[ 246.586085] #0: ffffffff9e951540 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at:
debug_show_all_locks+0x15/0x100
[ 246.589775] 3 locks held by chattr/715:
[ 246.591364] #0: ffff96a74b92c450 (sb_writers#11){....}-{0:0}, at:
ovl_ioctl_set_flags+0x2f/0x110
[ 246.597182] #1: ffff96a7489c3500
(&ovl_i_mutex_dir_key[depth]){....}-{3:3}, at:
ovl_ioctl_set_flags+0x54/0x110
[ 246.601325] #2: ffff96a7489c3500
(&ovl_i_mutex_dir_key[depth]){....}-{3:3}, at:
ovl_dir_real_file+0xc1/0x120
>
> >
> > Define a dedicated semaphore for the upperfile cache, so that the
> > deadlock won't happen.
> >
> > Fixes: 61536bed2149 ("ovl: support [S|G]ETFLAGS and FS[S|G]ETXATTR
> > ioctls for directories")
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.10
> > Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>
> > ---
> > fs/overlayfs/readdir.c | 6 ++++--
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c b/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
> > index 01620ebae1bd..f10701aabb71 100644
> > --- a/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
> > +++ b/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
> > @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ struct ovl_dir_file {
> > struct list_head *cursor;
> > struct file *realfile;
> > struct file *upperfile;
> > + struct semaphore upperfile_sem;
>
> mutex please
>
> > };
> >
> > static struct ovl_cache_entry *ovl_cache_entry_from_node(struct
> > rb_node *n)
> > @@ -883,7 +884,7 @@ struct file *ovl_dir_real_file(const struct
> > file *file, bool want_upper)
> > ovl_path_upper(dentry, &upperpath);
> > realfile = ovl_dir_open_realfile(file,
> > &upperpath);
> >
> > - inode_lock(inode);
> > + down(&od->upperfile_sem);
> > if (!od->upperfile) {
> > if (IS_ERR(realfile)) {
> > inode_unlock(inode);
>
> You missed this unlock
Thanks, will send v2 now.
>
> Thanks,
> Amir.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] ovl: use a dedicated semaphore for dir upperfile caching
2021-01-04 7:28 ` Icenowy Zheng
@ 2021-01-04 8:35 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-01-04 8:36 ` Icenowy Zheng
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Amir Goldstein @ 2021-01-04 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Icenowy Zheng; +Cc: Miklos Szeredi, Xiao Yang, overlayfs, linux-kernel, stable
On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 9:28 AM Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io> wrote:
>
> 在 2021-01-03星期日的 16:10 +0200，Amir Goldstein写道：
> > On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 10:12 PM Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The function ovl_dir_real_file() currently uses the semaphore of
> > > the
> > > inode to synchronize write to the upperfile cache field.
> > >
> > > However, this function will get called by ovl_ioctl_set_flags(),
> > > which
> > > utilizes the inode semaphore too. In this case ovl_dir_real_file()
> > > will
> > > try to claim a lock that is owned by a function in its call stack,
> > > which
> > > won't get released before ovl_dir_real_file() returns.
> >
> > oops. I wondered why I didn't see any warnings on this from lockdep.
> > Ah! because the xfstest that exercises ovl_ioctl_set_flags() on
> > directory,
> > generic/079, starts with an already upper dir.
> >
> > And the xfstest that checks chattr+i on lower/upper files,
> > overlay/040,
> > does not check chattr on dirs (ioctl on overlay dirs wasn't supported
> > at
> > the time the test was written).
> >
> > Would you be able to create a variant of test overlay/040 that also
> > tests
> > chattr +i on lower/upper dirs to test your patch and confirm that the
> > test
> > fails on master with the appropriate Kconfig debug options.
>
> https://gist.github.com/Icenowy/c7d8decb6812d6e5064d143c57281ad3
>
> Here's a test that would break on master (I used linux-next/master for
> test).
Thanks.
I am working on another test to improve overlay/030 that may also
cover this bug, so maybe no need for both tests. I'll let you know when
I'm done.
If you like, I can post your test for you with your Signed-of-by if I think
it is also needed.
>
> [ 246.521880] INFO: task chattr:715 blocked for more than 122 seconds.
> [ 246.525659] Not tainted 5.11.0-rc1-next-20210104+ #20
> [ 246.528498] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs"
> disables this message.
> [ 246.535076] task:chattr state:D stack:13736 pid: 715 ppid:
> 529 flags:0x00000000
> [ 246.538923] Call Trace:
> [ 246.540241] __schedule+0x2a9/0x820
> [ 246.541986] schedule+0x56/0xc0
> [ 246.543616] rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0x375/0x630
> [ 246.545565] ovl_dir_real_file+0xc1/0x120
> [ 246.547512] ovl_real_fdget+0x35/0x80
> [ 246.549303] ovl_real_ioctl+0x26/0x90
> [ 246.551050] ? mnt_drop_write+0x2c/0x70
> [ 246.553068] ovl_ioctl_set_flags+0x93/0x110
> [ 246.555407] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x7e/0xb0
> [ 246.557175] do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
> [ 246.558869] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> [ 246.561057] RIP: 0033:0x7fe4a3830b67
> [ 246.565799] RSP: 002b:00007ffe7ad504f8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX:
> 0000000000000010
> [ 246.569438] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000001 RCX:
> 00007fe4a3830b67
> [ 246.572061] RDX: 00007ffe7ad5050c RSI: 0000000040086602 RDI:
> 0000000000000003
> [ 246.575509] RBP: 0000000000000003 R08: 0000000000000001 R09:
> 0000000000000000
> [ 246.578932] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12:
> 0000000000000010
> [ 246.581014] R13: 00007ffe7ad50810 R14: 0000000000000002 R15:
> 0000000000000001
> [ 246.582818]
> [ 246.582818] Showing all locks held in the system:
> [ 246.584741] 1 lock held by khungtaskd/18:
> [ 246.586085] #0: ffffffff9e951540 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at:
> debug_show_all_locks+0x15/0x100
> [ 246.589775] 3 locks held by chattr/715:
> [ 246.591364] #0: ffff96a74b92c450 (sb_writers#11){....}-{0:0}, at:
> ovl_ioctl_set_flags+0x2f/0x110
> [ 246.597182] #1: ffff96a7489c3500
> (&ovl_i_mutex_dir_key[depth]){....}-{3:3}, at:
> ovl_ioctl_set_flags+0x54/0x110
> [ 246.601325] #2: ffff96a7489c3500
> (&ovl_i_mutex_dir_key[depth]){....}-{3:3}, at:
> ovl_dir_real_file+0xc1/0x120
>
> >
> > >
> > > Define a dedicated semaphore for the upperfile cache, so that the
> > > deadlock won't happen.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 61536bed2149 ("ovl: support [S|G]ETFLAGS and FS[S|G]ETXATTR
> > > ioctls for directories")
> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.10
> > > Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>
> > > ---
> > > fs/overlayfs/readdir.c | 6 ++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c b/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
> > > index 01620ebae1bd..f10701aabb71 100644
> > > --- a/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
> > > +++ b/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
> > > @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ struct ovl_dir_file {
> > > struct list_head *cursor;
> > > struct file *realfile;
> > > struct file *upperfile;
> > > + struct semaphore upperfile_sem;
> >
> > mutex please
> >
You missed this comment.
semaphore is discouraged as a locking primitive.
Please use struct mutex.
Thanks,
Amir.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] ovl: use a dedicated semaphore for dir upperfile caching
2021-01-04 8:35 ` Amir Goldstein
@ 2021-01-04 8:36 ` Icenowy Zheng
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Icenowy Zheng @ 2021-01-04 8:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Amir Goldstein; +Cc: Miklos Szeredi, Xiao Yang, overlayfs, linux-kernel, stable
于 2021年1月4日 GMT+08:00 下午4:35:20, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> 写到:
>On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 9:28 AM Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io> wrote:
>>
>> 在 2021-01-03星期日的 16:10 +0200，Amir Goldstein写道：
>> > On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 10:12 PM Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > The function ovl_dir_real_file() currently uses the semaphore of
>> > > the
>> > > inode to synchronize write to the upperfile cache field.
>> > >
>> > > However, this function will get called by ovl_ioctl_set_flags(),
>> > > which
>> > > utilizes the inode semaphore too. In this case
>ovl_dir_real_file()
>> > > will
>> > > try to claim a lock that is owned by a function in its call
>stack,
>> > > which
>> > > won't get released before ovl_dir_real_file() returns.
>> >
>> > oops. I wondered why I didn't see any warnings on this from
>lockdep.
>> > Ah! because the xfstest that exercises ovl_ioctl_set_flags() on
>> > directory,
>> > generic/079, starts with an already upper dir.
>> >
>> > And the xfstest that checks chattr+i on lower/upper files,
>> > overlay/040,
>> > does not check chattr on dirs (ioctl on overlay dirs wasn't
>supported
>> > at
>> > the time the test was written).
>> >
>> > Would you be able to create a variant of test overlay/040 that also
>> > tests
>> > chattr +i on lower/upper dirs to test your patch and confirm that
>the
>> > test
>> > fails on master with the appropriate Kconfig debug options.
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/Icenowy/c7d8decb6812d6e5064d143c57281ad3
>>
>> Here's a test that would break on master (I used linux-next/master
>for
>> test).
>
>Thanks.
>I am working on another test to improve overlay/030 that may also
>cover this bug, so maybe no need for both tests. I'll let you know when
>I'm done.
>If you like, I can post your test for you with your Signed-of-by if I
>think
>it is also needed.
>
>>
>> [ 246.521880] INFO: task chattr:715 blocked for more than 122
>seconds.
>> [ 246.525659] Not tainted 5.11.0-rc1-next-20210104+ #20
>> [ 246.528498] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs"
>> disables this message.
>> [ 246.535076] task:chattr state:D stack:13736 pid: 715
>ppid:
>> 529 flags:0x00000000
>> [ 246.538923] Call Trace:
>> [ 246.540241] __schedule+0x2a9/0x820
>> [ 246.541986] schedule+0x56/0xc0
>> [ 246.543616] rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0x375/0x630
>> [ 246.545565] ovl_dir_real_file+0xc1/0x120
>> [ 246.547512] ovl_real_fdget+0x35/0x80
>> [ 246.549303] ovl_real_ioctl+0x26/0x90
>> [ 246.551050] ? mnt_drop_write+0x2c/0x70
>> [ 246.553068] ovl_ioctl_set_flags+0x93/0x110
>> [ 246.555407] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x7e/0xb0
>> [ 246.557175] do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
>> [ 246.558869] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
>> [ 246.561057] RIP: 0033:0x7fe4a3830b67
>> [ 246.565799] RSP: 002b:00007ffe7ad504f8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX:
>> 0000000000000010
>> [ 246.569438] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000001 RCX:
>> 00007fe4a3830b67
>> [ 246.572061] RDX: 00007ffe7ad5050c RSI: 0000000040086602 RDI:
>> 0000000000000003
>> [ 246.575509] RBP: 0000000000000003 R08: 0000000000000001 R09:
>> 0000000000000000
>> [ 246.578932] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12:
>> 0000000000000010
>> [ 246.581014] R13: 00007ffe7ad50810 R14: 0000000000000002 R15:
>> 0000000000000001
>> [ 246.582818]
>> [ 246.582818] Showing all locks held in the system:
>> [ 246.584741] 1 lock held by khungtaskd/18:
>> [ 246.586085] #0: ffffffff9e951540 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at:
>> debug_show_all_locks+0x15/0x100
>> [ 246.589775] 3 locks held by chattr/715:
>> [ 246.591364] #0: ffff96a74b92c450 (sb_writers#11){....}-{0:0}, at:
>> ovl_ioctl_set_flags+0x2f/0x110
>> [ 246.597182] #1: ffff96a7489c3500
>> (&ovl_i_mutex_dir_key[depth]){....}-{3:3}, at:
>> ovl_ioctl_set_flags+0x54/0x110
>> [ 246.601325] #2: ffff96a7489c3500
>> (&ovl_i_mutex_dir_key[depth]){....}-{3:3}, at:
>> ovl_dir_real_file+0xc1/0x120
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Define a dedicated semaphore for the upperfile cache, so that the
>> > > deadlock won't happen.
>> > >
>> > > Fixes: 61536bed2149 ("ovl: support [S|G]ETFLAGS and
>FS[S|G]ETXATTR
>> > > ioctls for directories")
>> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.10
>> > > Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>
>> > > ---
>> > > fs/overlayfs/readdir.c | 6 ++++--
>> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c b/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
>> > > index 01620ebae1bd..f10701aabb71 100644
>> > > --- a/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
>> > > +++ b/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
>> > > @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ struct ovl_dir_file {
>> > > struct list_head *cursor;
>> > > struct file *realfile;
>> > > struct file *upperfile;
>> > > + struct semaphore upperfile_sem;
>> >
>> > mutex please
>> >
>
>You missed this comment.
>semaphore is discouraged as a locking primitive.
>Please use struct mutex.
Okay, sorry.
I will check it out.
>
>Thanks,
>Amir.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-01-04 8:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-01-01 20:12 [PATCH] ovl: use a dedicated semaphore for dir upperfile caching Icenowy Zheng
2021-01-03 14:10 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-01-04 7:28 ` Icenowy Zheng
2021-01-04 8:35 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-01-04 8:36 ` Icenowy Zheng
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).