* [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an error
@ 2016-04-01 5:12 Andrey Vagin
2016-04-01 7:37 ` Ian Kent
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Andrey Vagin @ 2016-04-01 5:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Kent; +Cc: autofs, linux-kernel, Andrey Vagin
From: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
__vfs_write() returns a negative value in a error case.
Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
---
fs/autofs4/waitq.c | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
index 0146d91..631f155 100644
--- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
+++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
@@ -66,11 +66,12 @@ static int autofs4_write(struct autofs_sb_info *sbi,
set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
mutex_lock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
- wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
- while (bytes && wr) {
+ while (bytes) {
+ wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
+ if (wr <= 0)
+ break;
data += wr;
bytes -= wr;
- wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
}
mutex_unlock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
--
2.5.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an error
2016-04-01 5:12 [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an error Andrey Vagin
@ 2016-04-01 7:37 ` Ian Kent
2016-05-23 21:50 ` Andrei Vagin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Ian Kent @ 2016-04-01 7:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrey Vagin; +Cc: autofs, linux-kernel, Andrey Vagin
On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 22:12 -0700, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> From: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
>
> __vfs_write() returns a negative value in a error case.
Ha, right, I'll send this along to Andrew with my next series which
should be soon.
>
> Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> ---
> fs/autofs4/waitq.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> index 0146d91..631f155 100644
> --- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> +++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> @@ -66,11 +66,12 @@ static int autofs4_write(struct autofs_sb_info
> *sbi,
> set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
>
> mutex_lock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
> - wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> - while (bytes && wr) {
> + while (bytes) {
> + wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> + if (wr <= 0)
> + break;
> data += wr;
> bytes -= wr;
> - wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> }
> mutex_unlock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an error
2016-04-01 7:37 ` Ian Kent
@ 2016-05-23 21:50 ` Andrei Vagin
2016-05-24 1:34 ` Ian Kent
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Andrei Vagin @ 2016-05-23 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Kent; +Cc: autofs, LKML
Hi Ian,
When are you going to apply this patch? We can't test linux-next without it.
Thanks,
Andrew
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 22:12 -0700, Andrey Vagin wrote:
>> From: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
>>
>> __vfs_write() returns a negative value in a error case.
>
> Ha, right, I'll send this along to Andrew with my next series which
> should be soon.
>
>>
>> Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
>> ---
>> fs/autofs4/waitq.c | 7 ++++---
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
>> index 0146d91..631f155 100644
>> --- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
>> +++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
>> @@ -66,11 +66,12 @@ static int autofs4_write(struct autofs_sb_info
>> *sbi,
>> set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
>>
>> mutex_lock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
>> - wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
>> - while (bytes && wr) {
>> + while (bytes) {
>> + wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
>> + if (wr <= 0)
>> + break;
>> data += wr;
>> bytes -= wr;
>> - wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
>> }
>> mutex_unlock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
>>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an error
2016-05-23 21:50 ` Andrei Vagin
@ 2016-05-24 1:34 ` Ian Kent
2016-05-30 5:52 ` Ian Kent
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Ian Kent @ 2016-05-24 1:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrei Vagin; +Cc: autofs, LKML, akpm
On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 14:50 -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> When are you going to apply this patch? We can't test linux-next without it.
I though I sent this with the last series but I can't see that I have.
I have the rest of that series to send over to Andrew which I was planning to do
after the current merge window closes (which is about now I guess).
I'll include it in that series.
Sorry for the hold up, ;)
Ian
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 22:12 -0700, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> > > From: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> > >
> > > __vfs_write() returns a negative value in a error case.
> >
> > Ha, right, I'll send this along to Andrew with my next series which
> > should be soon.
> >
> > >
> > > Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> > > ---
> > > fs/autofs4/waitq.c | 7 ++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > index 0146d91..631f155 100644
> > > --- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > +++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > @@ -66,11 +66,12 @@ static int autofs4_write(struct autofs_sb_info
> > > *sbi,
> > > set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
> > >
> > > mutex_lock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
> > > - wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > - while (bytes && wr) {
> > > + while (bytes) {
> > > + wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > + if (wr <= 0)
> > > + break;
> > > data += wr;
> > > bytes -= wr;
> > > - wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > }
> > > mutex_unlock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
> > >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an error
2016-05-24 1:34 ` Ian Kent
@ 2016-05-30 5:52 ` Ian Kent
2016-06-09 1:23 ` Ian Kent
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Ian Kent @ 2016-05-30 5:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrei Vagin; +Cc: autofs, LKML, akpm
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 09:34 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 14:50 -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> > Hi Ian,
> >
> > When are you going to apply this patch? We can't test linux-next without it.
>
> I though I sent this with the last series but I can't see that I have.
>
> I have the rest of that series to send over to Andrew which I was planning to
> do
> after the current merge window closes (which is about now I guess).
>
> I'll include it in that series.
> Sorry for the hold up, ;)
Some bad news I'm afraid.
I was getting ready to send these over to Andrew and found that opendir(3) is
failing on a number of tests (51 of 230, 9 fails are expected) with 4.6.0.
It's not the patches, yours or mine and it doesn't happen with 4.4.x kernels.
Looks like I'm going to have to bisect to work out what's going on and that will
take a while.
>
> Ian
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 22:12 -0700, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> > > > From: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> > > >
> > > > __vfs_write() returns a negative value in a error case.
> > >
> > > Ha, right, I'll send this along to Andrew with my next series which
> > > should be soon.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/autofs4/waitq.c | 7 ++++---
> > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > index 0146d91..631f155 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > @@ -66,11 +66,12 @@ static int autofs4_write(struct autofs_sb_info
> > > > *sbi,
> > > > set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
> > > >
> > > > mutex_lock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
> > > > - wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > > - while (bytes && wr) {
> > > > + while (bytes) {
> > > > + wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > > + if (wr <= 0)
> > > > + break;
> > > > data += wr;
> > > > bytes -= wr;
> > > > - wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > > }
> > > > mutex_unlock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an error
2016-05-30 5:52 ` Ian Kent
@ 2016-06-09 1:23 ` Ian Kent
2016-06-09 17:27 ` Andrei Vagin
2016-06-10 19:07 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Ian Kent @ 2016-06-09 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrei Vagin; +Cc: autofs, LKML, akpm
On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 13:52 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 09:34 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 14:50 -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> > > Hi Ian,
> > >
> > > When are you going to apply this patch? We can't test linux-next without
> > > it.
> >
> > I though I sent this with the last series but I can't see that I have.
> >
> > I have the rest of that series to send over to Andrew which I was planning
> > to
> > do
> > after the current merge window closes (which is about now I guess).
> >
> > I'll include it in that series.
> > Sorry for the hold up, ;)
>
> Some bad news I'm afraid.
>
> I was getting ready to send these over to Andrew and found that opendir(3) is
> failing on a number of tests (51 of 230, 9 fails are expected) with 4.6.0.
>
> It's not the patches, yours or mine and it doesn't happen with 4.4.x kernels.
>
> Looks like I'm going to have to bisect to work out what's going on and that
> will
> take a while.
The regression has been fixed now.
Al Viro sent a patch for it to Linus yesterday, it's commit e6ec03a25f1 in the
Linux tree.
I can send my patches to Andrew (after re-testing) but any autofs related
testing of linux.next will need the above commit.
Andrew, surely this isn't the first time this type of problem has happened, how
is it usually handled, what do I need to do to make this go smoothly?
>
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 22:12 -0700, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> > > > > From: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> > > > >
> > > > > __vfs_write() returns a negative value in a error case.
> > > >
> > > > Ha, right, I'll send this along to Andrew with my next series which
> > > > should be soon.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > fs/autofs4/waitq.c | 7 ++++---
> > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > > index 0146d91..631f155 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > > @@ -66,11 +66,12 @@ static int autofs4_write(struct autofs_sb_info
> > > > > *sbi,
> > > > > set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
> > > > >
> > > > > mutex_lock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
> > > > > - wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > > > - while (bytes && wr) {
> > > > > + while (bytes) {
> > > > > + wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > > > + if (wr <= 0)
> > > > > + break;
> > > > > data += wr;
> > > > > bytes -= wr;
> > > > > - wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > > > }
> > > > > mutex_unlock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an error
2016-06-09 1:23 ` Ian Kent
@ 2016-06-09 17:27 ` Andrei Vagin
2016-06-10 8:45 ` Ian Kent
2016-06-10 19:07 ` Andrew Morton
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Andrei Vagin @ 2016-06-09 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Kent; +Cc: autofs, LKML, Andrew Morton
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 13:52 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 09:34 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 14:50 -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote:
>> > > Hi Ian,
>> > >
>> > > When are you going to apply this patch? We can't test linux-next without
>> > > it.
>> >
>> > I though I sent this with the last series but I can't see that I have.
>> >
>> > I have the rest of that series to send over to Andrew which I was planning
>> > to
>> > do
>> > after the current merge window closes (which is about now I guess).
>> >
>> > I'll include it in that series.
>> > Sorry for the hold up, ;)
>>
>> Some bad news I'm afraid.
>>
>> I was getting ready to send these over to Andrew and found that opendir(3) is
>> failing on a number of tests (51 of 230, 9 fails are expected) with 4.6.0.
>>
>> It's not the patches, yours or mine and it doesn't happen with 4.4.x kernels.
>>
>> Looks like I'm going to have to bisect to work out what's going on and that
>> will
>> take a while.
>
> The regression has been fixed now.
>
> Al Viro sent a patch for it to Linus yesterday, it's commit e6ec03a25f1 in the
> Linux tree.
It's good!
>
> I can send my patches to Andrew (after re-testing) but any autofs related
> testing of linux.next will need the above commit.
>
> Andrew, surely this isn't the first time this type of problem has happened, how
> is it usually handled, what do I need to do to make this go smoothly?
In linux-next we catch two sorts of bugs.
1. If bugs is triggered very often, we report it, when it isn't in
Linus' tree. And such bugs are fixed very fast.
2. If bugs is triggered rarely. In this case we may detect this bug
too late, when it's in Linus' tree. In this case we may need to
workaraound it.
Here the problem belongs to the second type. It is triggered only when
one or more tests failed and we try to kill all test processes.
Actually it doesn't affect regular runs of tests, but it's annoying
when we are investigating something.
Ian, I don't think that you need to do anything special. Thank you for
handling this patch!
Thanks,
Andrew
>
>>
>> >
>> > Ian
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Andrew
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
>> > > > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 22:12 -0700, Andrey Vagin wrote:
>> > > > > From: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > __vfs_write() returns a negative value in a error case.
>> > > >
>> > > > Ha, right, I'll send this along to Andrew with my next series which
>> > > > should be soon.
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
>> > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
>> > > > > ---
>> > > > > fs/autofs4/waitq.c | 7 ++++---
>> > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
>> > > > > index 0146d91..631f155 100644
>> > > > > --- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
>> > > > > +++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
>> > > > > @@ -66,11 +66,12 @@ static int autofs4_write(struct autofs_sb_info
>> > > > > *sbi,
>> > > > > set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
>> > > > >
>> > > > > mutex_lock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
>> > > > > - wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
>> > > > > - while (bytes && wr) {
>> > > > > + while (bytes) {
>> > > > > + wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
>> > > > > + if (wr <= 0)
>> > > > > + break;
>> > > > > data += wr;
>> > > > > bytes -= wr;
>> > > > > - wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
>> > > > > }
>> > > > > mutex_unlock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an error
2016-06-09 17:27 ` Andrei Vagin
@ 2016-06-10 8:45 ` Ian Kent
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Ian Kent @ 2016-06-10 8:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrei Vagin; +Cc: autofs, LKML, Andrew Morton
On Thu, 2016-06-09 at 10:27 -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 13:52 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 09:34 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 14:50 -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> > > > > Hi Ian,
> > > > >
> > > > > When are you going to apply this patch? We can't test linux-next
> > > > > without
> > > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > I though I sent this with the last series but I can't see that I have.
> > > >
> > > > I have the rest of that series to send over to Andrew which I was
> > > > planning
> > > > to
> > > > do
> > > > after the current merge window closes (which is about now I guess).
> > > >
> > > > I'll include it in that series.
> > > > Sorry for the hold up, ;)
> > >
> > > Some bad news I'm afraid.
> > >
> > > I was getting ready to send these over to Andrew and found that opendir(3)
> > > is
> > > failing on a number of tests (51 of 230, 9 fails are expected) with 4.6.0.
> > >
> > > It's not the patches, yours or mine and it doesn't happen with 4.4.x
> > > kernels.
> > >
> > > Looks like I'm going to have to bisect to work out what's going on and
> > > that
> > > will
> > > take a while.
> >
> > The regression has been fixed now.
> >
> > Al Viro sent a patch for it to Linus yesterday, it's commit e6ec03a25f1 in
> > the
> > Linux tree.
>
> It's good!
>
> >
> > I can send my patches to Andrew (after re-testing) but any autofs related
> > testing of linux.next will need the above commit.
> >
> > Andrew, surely this isn't the first time this type of problem has happened,
> > how
> > is it usually handled, what do I need to do to make this go smoothly?
>
> In linux-next we catch two sorts of bugs.
>
> 1. If bugs is triggered very often, we report it, when it isn't in
> Linus' tree. And such bugs are fixed very fast.
> 2. If bugs is triggered rarely. In this case we may detect this bug
> too late, when it's in Linus' tree. In this case we may need to
> workaraound it.
>
> Here the problem belongs to the second type. It is triggered only when
> one or more tests failed and we try to kill all test processes.
> Actually it doesn't affect regular runs of tests, but it's annoying
> when we are investigating something.
>
> Ian, I don't think that you need to do anything special. Thank you for
> handling this patch!
LOL, it's good that it was my standard (relatively simple) testing that exposed
it.
I'll wait a little longer in case Andrew has anything to add then send the patch
series to him.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Ian
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Andrew
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 22:12 -0700, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > __vfs_write() returns a negative value in a error case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ha, right, I'll send this along to Andrew with my next series which
> > > > > > should be soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > fs/autofs4/waitq.c | 7 ++++---
> > > > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > > > > index 0146d91..631f155 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > > > > @@ -66,11 +66,12 @@ static int autofs4_write(struct autofs_sb_info
> > > > > > > *sbi,
> > > > > > > set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > mutex_lock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
> > > > > > > - wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > > > > > - while (bytes && wr) {
> > > > > > > + while (bytes) {
> > > > > > > + wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > > > > > + if (wr <= 0)
> > > > > > > + break;
> > > > > > > data += wr;
> > > > > > > bytes -= wr;
> > > > > > > - wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > mutex_unlock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an error
2016-06-09 1:23 ` Ian Kent
2016-06-09 17:27 ` Andrei Vagin
@ 2016-06-10 19:07 ` Andrew Morton
2016-06-16 7:58 ` Ian Kent
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2016-06-10 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Kent; +Cc: Andrei Vagin, autofs, LKML
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 09:23:26 +0800 Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
> > I was getting ready to send these over to Andrew and found that opendir(3) is
> > failing on a number of tests (51 of 230, 9 fails are expected) with 4.6.0.
> >
> > It's not the patches, yours or mine and it doesn't happen with 4.4.x kernels.
> >
> > Looks like I'm going to have to bisect to work out what's going on and that
> > will
> > take a while.
>
> The regression has been fixed now.
>
> Al Viro sent a patch for it to Linus yesterday, it's commit e6ec03a25f1 in the
> Linux tree.
>
> I can send my patches to Andrew (after re-testing) but any autofs related
> testing of linux.next will need the above commit.
>
> Andrew, surely this isn't the first time this type of problem has happened, how
> is it usually handled, what do I need to do to make this go smoothly?
e6ec03a25f1 is in Linus's tree now so everything should be good.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an error
2016-06-10 19:07 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2016-06-16 7:58 ` Ian Kent
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Ian Kent @ 2016-06-16 7:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Andrei Vagin, autofs, LKML
On Fri, 2016-06-10 at 12:07 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 09:23:26 +0800 Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
>
> > > I was getting ready to send these over to Andrew and found that opendir(3)
> > > is
> > > failing on a number of tests (51 of 230, 9 fails are expected) with 4.6.0.
> > >
> > > It's not the patches, yours or mine and it doesn't happen with 4.4.x
> > > kernels.
> > >
> > > Looks like I'm going to have to bisect to work out what's going on and
> > > that
> > > will
> > > take a while.
> >
> > The regression has been fixed now.
> >
> > Al Viro sent a patch for it to Linus yesterday, it's commit e6ec03a25f1 in
> > the
> > Linux tree.
> >
> > I can send my patches to Andrew (after re-testing) but any autofs related
> > testing of linux.next will need the above commit.
> >
> > Andrew, surely this isn't the first time this type of problem has happened,
> > how
> > is it usually handled, what do I need to do to make this go smoothly?
>
> e6ec03a25f1 is in Linus's tree now so everything should be good.
Everything was good.
There's another autofs patch in Al's for-linus tree now and I don't know when it
will go to Linus.
That one will definitely cause merge conflicts.
After thinking about it, it's probably best to defer the module rename series
until after the next merge window, after all it's not urgent (apart from being
needed for so long).
I'll send over Andrei's patch alone soonish.
Thanks all for your patience,
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an error
@ 2016-06-16 8:31 Ian Kent
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Ian Kent @ 2016-06-16 8:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: linux-fsdevel, autofs mailing list, Andrey Vagin, Kernel Mailing List
From: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
__vfs_write() returns a negative value in a error case.
Signed-off-by: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
---
fs/autofs4/waitq.c | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
index 0146d91..631f155 100644
--- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
+++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
@@ -66,11 +66,12 @@ static int autofs4_write(struct autofs_sb_info *sbi,
set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
mutex_lock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
- wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
- while (bytes && wr) {
+ while (bytes) {
+ wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
+ if (wr <= 0)
+ break;
data += wr;
bytes -= wr;
- wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
}
mutex_unlock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-06-16 8:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-04-01 5:12 [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an error Andrey Vagin
2016-04-01 7:37 ` Ian Kent
2016-05-23 21:50 ` Andrei Vagin
2016-05-24 1:34 ` Ian Kent
2016-05-30 5:52 ` Ian Kent
2016-06-09 1:23 ` Ian Kent
2016-06-09 17:27 ` Andrei Vagin
2016-06-10 8:45 ` Ian Kent
2016-06-10 19:07 ` Andrew Morton
2016-06-16 7:58 ` Ian Kent
2016-06-16 8:31 Ian Kent
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).