[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1JkxKz-0003A8-9V@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:13:21 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: bfields@...ldses.org
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, trond.myklebust@....uio.no,
eshel@...aden.ibm.com, neilb@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: nfs: infinite loop in fcntl(F_SETLKW)
> > > > OK. So the correct fix here should really be applied to fcntl_setlk().
> > > > There is absolutely no reason why we should be looping at all if the
> > > > filesystem has a ->lock() method.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, this looping behaviour was introduced recently in commit
> > > > 7723ec9777d9832849b76475b1a21a2872a40d20.
> > >
> > > Apologies, that was indeed a behavioral change introduced in a commit
> > > that claimed just to be shuffling code around.
> >
> > Yeah, that patch looks totally wrong. It's not generally a good idea
> > to do a loop where the exit condition depends on something you don't
> > control. And error values from filesystem methods are typically like
> > that. For example with fuse, the error code could come from an
> > unprivileged userspace process.
> >
> > I didn't realize this aspect of the bug previously, because I
> > concentrated on the lockd inconsistency.
>
> So, does this patch on its own fix the problem you saw?
Yes. With the patch applied, the test program returns "lockf:
Resource temporarily unavailable" instead of hanging.
Thanks,
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists