[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegvS+rmFqGgvHq183Z-MxLAwcgEB57LQxAwy3QAe5CaVwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:43:52 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Maxim Patlasov <mpatlasov@...allels.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anand Avati <avati@...ster.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael j Theall <mtheall@...ibm.com>,
fuse-devel <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] fuse: handle release synchronously (v4)
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Maxim Patlasov
<mpatlasov@...allels.com> wrote:
> Something as simple as:
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> int fd = open(argv[1], O_RDWR);
> fork();
> }
>
> may easily dive into fuse_try_sync_release() concurrently and both observe
> file->f_count == 2. Then both return falling back to sending the release
> asynchronously. This makes sync/async behaviour unpredictable even for
> well-behaved applications which don't do any esoteric things like racing i/o
> with close or exiting while a descriptor is in-flight in a unix domain
> socket.
>
> I cannot see any way to recognise last flush without help of VFS layer, can
> you?
No.
One idea is to change ->flush() so it's responsible for fput()-ing the
file. That way we could take control of the actual refcount
decrement. There are only 20 flush instances in the tree, so it
wouldn't be a huge change.
Thanks,
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