linux-kernel - [PATCH] lockd: convert reclaimer thread to kthread interface

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed,  5 Nov 2008 15:17:42 -0500
From:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To:	trond.myklebust@....uio.no
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] lockd: convert reclaimer thread to kthread interface

My understanding is that there is a push to turn the kernel_thread
interface into a non-exported symbol and move all kernel threads to use
the kthread API. This patch changes lockd to use kthread_run to spawn
the reclaimer thread.

I've made the assumption here that the extra module references taken
when we spawn this thread are unnecessary and removed them. I've also
added a KERN_ERR printk that pops if the thread can't be spawned to warn
the admin that the locks won't be reclaimed.

In the future, it would be nice to be able to notify userspace that
locks have been lost (probably by implementing SIGLOST), and adding some
good policies about how long we should reattempt to reclaim the locks.

Finally, I removed a comment about memory leaks that I believe is
obsolete and added a new one to clarify the result of sending a SIGKILL
to the reclaimer thread. As best I can tell, doing so doesn't actually
cause a memory leak.

I consider this patch 2.6.29 material.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
---
 fs/lockd/clntlock.c |   21 +++++++++++++++------
 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/lockd/clntlock.c b/fs/lockd/clntlock.c
index 8307dd6..94d42cc 100644
--- a/fs/lockd/clntlock.c
+++ b/fs/lockd/clntlock.c
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
 #include <linux/sunrpc/svc.h>
 #include <linux/lockd/lockd.h>
 #include <linux/smp_lock.h>
+#include <linux/kthread.h>
 
 #define NLMDBG_FACILITY		NLMDBG_CLIENT
 
@@ -191,11 +192,15 @@ __be32 nlmclnt_grant(const struct sockaddr *addr, const struct nlm_lock *lock)
 void
 nlmclnt_recovery(struct nlm_host *host)
 {
+	struct task_struct *task;
+
 	if (!host->h_reclaiming++) {
 		nlm_get_host(host);
-		__module_get(THIS_MODULE);
-		if (kernel_thread(reclaimer, host, CLONE_FS | CLONE_FILES) < 0)
-			module_put(THIS_MODULE);
+		task = kthread_run(reclaimer, host, "%s-reclaim", host->h_name);
+		if (IS_ERR(task))
+			printk(KERN_ERR "lockd: unable to spawn reclaimer "
+				"thread. Locks for %s won't be reclaimed! "
+				"(%ld)\n", host->h_name, PTR_ERR(task));
 	}
 }
 
@@ -207,7 +212,6 @@ reclaimer(void *ptr)
 	struct file_lock *fl, *next;
 	u32 nsmstate;
 
-	daemonize("%s-reclaim", host->h_name);
 	allow_signal(SIGKILL);
 
 	down_write(&host->h_rwsem);
@@ -233,7 +237,12 @@ restart:
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(fl, next, &host->h_reclaim, fl_u.nfs_fl.list) {
 		list_del_init(&fl->fl_u.nfs_fl.list);
 
-		/* Why are we leaking memory here? --okir */
+		/*
+		 * sending this thread a SIGKILL will result in any unreclaimed
+		 * locks being removed from the h_granted list. This means that
+		 * the kernel will not attempt to reclaim them again if a new
+		 * reclaimer thread is spawned for this host.
+		 */
 		if (signalled())
 			continue;
 		if (nlmclnt_reclaim(host, fl) != 0)
@@ -261,5 +270,5 @@ restart:
 	nlm_release_host(host);
 	lockd_down();
 	unlock_kernel();
-	module_put_and_exit(0);
+	return 0;
 }
-- 
1.5.5.1

--
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/