linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for May 8 (dlm)

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>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <519142E7.4080009@infradead.org>
Date:	Mon, 13 May 2013 12:45:43 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
	David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>
CC:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cluster-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for May 8 (dlm)

[resending since mail server dropped it]

On 05/13/13 12:34, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 05/13/13 12:31, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 05/13/13 09:30, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 05/13/13 02:18, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 10:08 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>>> On 05/09/13 09:50, David Teigland wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>>>> [Just forwarding to David ...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on x86_64:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> when CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM=y and CONFIG_DLM=m:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gfs2_lock':
>>>>>>>> file.c:(.text+0xa512c): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_get'
>>>>>>>> file.c:(.text+0xa5140): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_unlock'
>>>>>>>> file.c:(.text+0xa514a): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_lock'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> gfs2/file.c calls the dlm directly, so I suppose gfs2 itself needs
>>>>>> to depend on the dlm.  It's been like this for a long time, so I
>>>>>> don't know why it only appeared now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed to both statements.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_cancel':
>>>>>>>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb3f57): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock'
>>>>>>>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_unmount':
>>>>>>>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb40ff): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace'
>>>>>>>> fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_unlock.isra.4':
>>>>>>>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb420d): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock'
>>>>>>>> fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_lock.isra.5':
>>>>>>>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb42d9): undefined reference to `dlm_lock'
>>>>>>>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_put_lock':
>>>>>>>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb45e7): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock'
>>>>>>>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_mount':
>>>>>>>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4928): undefined reference to `dlm_new_lockspace'
>>>>>>>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4c75): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace'
>>>>>>>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_lock':
>>>>>>>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb529f): undefined reference to `dlm_lock'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lock_dlm.c is GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM which depends on DLM.
>>>>>> Is that not correct?
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM is a bool.  It depends on DLM,
>>>>> which is a tristate with a value of 'm', so the bool is true (as long
>>>>> as DLM != 'n').
>>>>>
>>>>> One option is to make GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM depend on "DLM != n", but a
>>>>> better fix is to make GFS2_FS depend on DLM, like you said above.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does this look correct? As Dave says this has not changed for some time.
>>>> It seems that every time we try to get this right, there is always some
>>>> corner case that is missed :( 
>>>
>>> Sorry, I misspoke above.   It will have to depend on DLM=y since DLM=m
>>> is what is causing these build errors.
>>
>> and that is too strict.  It needs to allow for both dlm and gfs2 built as
>> loadable modules.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>>> We can't make GFS2_FS depend on DLM as otherwise there would be no
>>>> reason to have GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM, at least if I've understood the
>>>> issue here correctly. So I've come up with the following... does it look
>>>> ok?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/gfs2/Kconfig b/fs/gfs2/Kconfig
>>>> index eb08c9e..edbad96 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/gfs2/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/fs/gfs2/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ config GFS2_FS
>>>>  config GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM
>>>>  	bool "GFS2 DLM locking"
>>>>  	depends on (GFS2_FS!=n) && NET && INET && (IPV6 || IPV6=n) && \
>>>> -		HOTPLUG && DLM && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS
>>>> +		HOTPLUG && (DLM!=n) && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS
>>>
>>> 		HOTPLUG && DLM=y && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS
>>
>> 		HOTPLUG && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS && (DLM=y || DLM=GFS2_FS)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> I think.
> 
> tested and works AFAICT.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>>
>>>>  	help
>>>>  	  Multiple node locking module for GFS2
>>>>  


-- 
~Randy
--
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/