[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101031030443.GB24174@fieldses.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 23:04:44 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@...app.com>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] nfsd4: initialize delegation pointer to lease
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:04:31PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 05:31:16PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > The NFSv4 server was initializing the dp->dl_flock pointer by the
> > somewhat ridiculous method of a locks_copy_lock callback.
> >
> > Now that setlease uses the passed-in lock instead of doing a copy,
> > dl_flock no longer gets set, resulting in the lock leaking on delegation
> > release, and later possible hangs (among other problems).
> >
> > So, initialize dl_flock and get rid of the callback.
>
> >From what I can see this was the only instance of
> lock_manager_operations.fl_copy_lock. Please kill it while you're at
> it.
>
> Also lock_manager_operations.fl_release_private has only exact one
> instance in nfs4d which is part of the same abuse scheme. Please also
> get rid of it. I recently noticed this while updating
> Documentation/filesystems/Locking for the grand new BKL-less world.
Yeah, I wanted to maximize chances of getting the minimal fixes into
-rc1, but I've got patches for that queued up too. I was planning on
waiting for the next merge window, but I'm happy enough to send them in
now.
--b.
--
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