[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpeguG4f4S-pq+_EXHxfB63mbof-VnaOy-7a-7seWLMj_xyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 13:02:35 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Jürg Billeter <j@...ron.ch>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
regressions@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] fuse: execve() fails with ETXTBSY due to async fuse_flush
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 at 08:03, Jürg Billeter <j@...ron.ch> wrote:
>
> Since v6.3-rc1 commit 5a8bee63b1 ("fuse: in fuse_flush only wait if
> someone wants the return code") `fput()` is called asynchronously if a
> file is closed as part of a process exiting, i.e., if there was no
> explicit `close()` before exit.
>
> If the file was open for writing, also `put_write_access()` is called
> asynchronously as part of the async `fput()`.
>
> If that newly written file is an executable, attempting to `execve()`
> the new file can fail with `ETXTBSY` if it's called after the writer
> process exited but before the async `fput()` has run.
Thanks for the report.
At this point, I think it would be best to revert the original patch,
since only v6.4 has it.
The original fix was already a workaround, and I don't see a clear
path forward in this direction. We need to see if there's better
direction.
Ideas?
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists