[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yg/273dWmTKDW5Mu@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 19:43:43 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
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, Feb 18, 2022 at 02:33:31PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 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()?
Umm... I'm not sure you can afford having struct ipc_namespace
freed and reused before the mqueue superblock gets at least to
deactivate_locked_super().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists