lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Union mount and lockdep design issues
On 12 July 2011 10:30, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:
> Michal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz> writes:
>
>> The locking order is likely determined by the structure of the union
>> and not some system-wide order of filesystems so assuming the readonly
>> layers are locked as well you will probably get a deadlock with
>> technically correct mount:
>>
>> mount -t overlayfs overlayfs -olowerdir=/lower2,upperdir=/upper /tmpoverlay
>> mount -t overlayfs overlayfs -olowerdir=/lower1,upperdir=/tmpoverlay /overlay
>>
>> mount -t overlayfs overlayfs -olowerdir=/lower1,upperdir=/upper2 /tmpoverlay2
>> mount -t overlayfs overlayfs -olowerdir=/lower2,upperdir=/tmpoverlay2 /overlay2
>>
>> because now lower1 and lower2 are differently ordered in the two
>> overlays.
>
> Overlayfs never locks both upper and lower at the same time, which means
> there's no AB-BA locking dependency.  The lock orderings are:
>
> -> /overlay
>  -> /lower1
>  -> /tmpoverlay
>    -> /lower2
>    -> /upper
> -> /overlay2
>  -> /lower2
>  -> /tmpoverlay2
>    -> /lower1
>    -> /upper2
>
> As you can see there's no nesting of lower2 and lower1 into each other.
>
> When you combine two filesystems, a completely new ordering is created
> each time, there's no possibility to make an AB-BA nesting.  At least I
> cannot see one.

Except you can get in situation where overlay locks lower1 and
tmpoverlay waits for lower2 which is held by overlay2 waiting for
lower1 in tmpoverlay2.

Thanks

Michal
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-07-12 12:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans