| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:12:52 +0100 From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> To: ncunningham@...a.org.au CC: miklos@...redi.hu, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Freezer: Don't count threads waiting for frozen filesystems. On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > However it does not fix the freezing of tasks which are waiting for > > VFS locks (i.e. inode->i_mutex) held by the outstanding fuse requests. > > This is the tricky part... > > Okay. Looking back on our conversation brought me back to this message, > which I think needs another reply. > > If we take the strategy of holding new requests and allowing existing > ones to complete, then am I right in thinking that we only need to worry > about where inode->i_mutex is taken in fs/fuse/file.c (I don't see it > taken in other fs/fuse/*.c files). Nope, i_mutex is usually taken by the VFS not the filesystem. That means that the filesystem is called with the mutex already held. Try "grep i_mutex fs/*.c". There's also sb->s_vfs_rename_mutex, for all the gory details see Documentation/filesystems/Locking. So it's not just having to fix fuse, it's having to "fix" the VFS as well. 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