[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140904140303.0b108188@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 14:03:03 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@...marydata.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/17] locks: remove i_have_this_lease check from
__break_lease
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:51:32 -0700
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:38:39AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > I think that the intent of this code was to ensure that a process won't
> > deadlock if it has one fd open with a lease on it and then breaks that
> > lease by opening another fd. In that case it'll treat the __break_lease
> > call as if it were non-blocking.
> >
> > This seems wrong -- the process could (for instance) be multithreaded
> > and managing different fds via different threads. I also don't see any
> > mention of this limitation in the (somewhat sketchy) documentation.
> >
> > Remove the check and the non-blocking behavior when i_have_this_lease
> > is true.
>
> This looks reasonable to me, but I'm always very worried about changing
> userspace exposed behavior..
>
Yeah, me too, but I think the behavior in this case is just plain
wrong. It's really hard to understand how anyone would rely on this to
avoid deadlocking, but you never know...
I want to phase this out, but I'm certainly open to doing this in a
smoother fashion if anyone has suggestions on how to do so.
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...marydata.com>
--
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