lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: nfs: infinite loop in fcntl(F_SETLKW)
From
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 09:12:23PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > OK. So the correct fix here should really be applied to fcntl_setlk().
> > > There is absolutely no reason why we should be looping at all if the
> > > filesystem has a ->lock() method.
> > >
> > > In fact, this looping behaviour was introduced recently in commit
> > > 7723ec9777d9832849b76475b1a21a2872a40d20.
> >
> > Apologies, that was indeed a behavioral change introduced in a commit
> > that claimed just to be shuffling code around.
>
> Yeah, that patch looks totally wrong. It's not generally a good idea
> to do a loop where the exit condition depends on something you don't
> control. And error values from filesystem methods are typically like
> that. For example with fuse, the error code could come from an
> unprivileged userspace process.
>
> I didn't realize this aspect of the bug previously, because I
> concentrated on the lockd inconsistency.
>
> Btw, why hasn't this work been posted on -fsdevel prior to merging
> into mainline?

http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=117581629326194&w=2

--b.

>
> >
> > > Marc, Bruce, why was this
> > > done, and how are filesystems now supposed to behave?
> > >
> >
> > The assumption must have been that -EAGAIN could only mean that we
> > needed to keep blocking, and hence was a nonsensical return from a
> > filesystem lock method that waited itself for the lock to become
> > available--such a method would return 0, -EINTR (or some more exotic
> > error), or continue waiting.
>
> EAGAIN for a blocking lock is nonsensical, so my original patch could
> still make sense. But that's no longer a regression, and not all that
> important.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-11 21:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans