[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegu7NE9_yZhSmHXVJ=wZTY=xPER8CVsxT3qNSncjOFGVsw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 01:49:27 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>
Cc: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@...allels.com>,
fuse-devel <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Anand Avati <avati@...hat.com>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse: hold i_mutex in fuse_file_fallocate() - v2
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 06/13/2013 04:16 AM, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
>> Changing size of a file on server and local update (fuse_write_update_size)
>> should be always protected by inode->i_mutex. Otherwise a race like this is
>> possible:
>>
>> 1. Process 'A' calls fallocate(2) to extend file (~FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE).
>> fuse_file_fallocate() sends FUSE_FALLOCATE request to the server.
>> 2. Process 'B' calls ftruncate(2) shrinking the file. fuse_do_setattr()
>> sends shrinking FUSE_SETATTR request to the server and updates local i_size
>> by i_size_write(inode, outarg.attr.size).
>> 3. Process 'A' resumes execution of fuse_file_fallocate() and calls
>> fuse_write_update_size(inode, offset + length). But 'offset + length' was
>> obsoleted by ftruncate from previous step.
>>
>> Changed in v2 (thanks Brian and Anand for suggestions):
>> - made relation between mutex_lock() and fuse_set_nowrite(inode) more
>> explicit and clear.
>> - updated patch description to use ftruncate(2) in example
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maxim V. Patlasov <MPatlasov@...allels.com>
Thanks, applied.
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