[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5f442a7770fe4ac06b2837e4f937d559f5d17b8b.camel@surriel.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:33:31 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...nel.org,
gscrivan@...hat.com, Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vfs: free vfsmount through rcu work from
kern_unmount
On Fri, 2022-02-18 at 19:26 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 01:31:13PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > After kern_unmount returns, callers can no longer access the
> > vfsmount structure. However, the vfsmount structure does need
> > to be kept around until the end of the RCU grace period, to
> > make sure other accesses have all gone away too.
> >
> > This can be accomplished by either gating each kern_unmount
> > on synchronize_rcu (the comment in the code says it all), or
> > by deferring the freeing until the next grace period, where
> > it needs to be handled in a workqueue due to the locking in
> > mntput_no_expire().
>
> NAK. There's code that relies upon kern_unmount() being
> synchronous. That's precisely the reason why MNT_INTERNAL
> is treated that way in mntput_no_expire().
Fair enough. Should I make a kern_unmount_rcu() version
that gets called just from mq_put_mnt()?
--
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists