[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190821194810.GI8653@ziepe.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 16:48:10 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-)
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:57:03AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > Oh, I didn't think we were talking about that. Hanging the close of
> > the datafile fd contingent on some other FD's closure is a recipe for
> > deadlock..
>
> The discussion between Jan and Dave was concerning what happens when a user
> calls
>
> fd = open()
> fnctl(...getlease...)
> addr = mmap(fd...)
> ib_reg_mr() <pin>
> munmap(addr...)
> close(fd)
I don't see how blocking close(fd) could work. Write it like this:
fd = open()
uverbs = open(/dev/uverbs)
fnctl(...getlease...)
addr = mmap(fd...)
ib_reg_mr() <pin>
munmap(addr...)
<sigkill>
The order FD's are closed during sigkill is not deterministic, so when
all the fputs happen during a kill'd exit we could end up blocking in
close(fd) as close(uverbs) will come after in the close
list. close(uverbs) is the thing that does the dereg_mr and releases
the pin.
We don't need complexity with dup to create problems.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists