[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <494B2DEB.7080107@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:15:23 +0900
From: Toshiyuki Okajima <toshi.okajima@...fujitsu.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3] vfs: add releasepages hooks to block devices which
can be used by file systems
Hello.
Jan Kara wrote:
> Hello,
>
<SNIP>
> > Which of the following do you mean:
> > 1) If using a spinlock in client_releasepage() is only for mount/umount,
> > this implementation is not wise.
> > 2) There is the fact that a spinlock is necessary for blkdev_releasepage().
> > This fact prevents us from making various implementations of
> > client_releasepage().
> > (Without a spinlock, we can implement a client_releasepage() which can release
> > the buffers with a sleep. As a result, it may enable more buffers release than
> > before.)
> >
> > There is the fact that a filesystem can be mounted on several places,
> > and the lock mechanism is absolutely necessary for this fact.
> This is the thing I was wondering about. Why exactly is the spinlock
> necessary for blkdev_releasepage()? I understand we have to protect
> reading client_releasepage() pointer because it could change but my point
> was that it changes only during mount / umount.
There are 2 purposes of this lock.
1) The race between filesystem's mount and umount.
(So that a filesystem can be mounted on several places concurrently.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Without this lock, there is a possibility that the pointer of
ei->client_releasepage becomes NULL by umount.
As a result, a special releasepage for its filesystem is not used even if its
filesystem has been mounted.
------------------------------------------------------------------
2) The race between the usage of blkdev_releasepage() and umount.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Without this lock, there is a possibility that the pointer of
ei->client_releasepage becomes NULL by umount.
As a result, the process which calls blkdev_releasepage() may experience a page
fault. Because blkdev_releasepage() refers the value ei->client_releasepage
and then calls it as a function.
But even if the pointer is not NULL, there is a possibility that a filesystem
which has it has been unmounted. Besides, there is a possibility that the
module of the filesystem has been unloaded. In this case, something wrong
can happen.
(Example: While a filesystem is being unmounted, one of its resources can be
touched by using the ei->client_releasepage of the filesystem by
the side of calling blkdev_releasepage.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore some lock mechanisms are necessary to solve the races.
Regards,
Toshiyuki Okajima
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists