lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/6] fuse: fix synchronous case of fuse_file_put()
On 08/22/2014 06:08 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@parallels.com> wrote:
>> If fuse_file_put() is called with sync==true, the user may be blocked for
>> a while, until userspace ACKs our FUSE_RELEASE request. This blocking must be
>> uninterruptible. Otherwise request could be interrupted, but file association
>> in user space remains.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <mpatlasov@parallels.com>
>> ---
>> fs/fuse/file.c | 4 ++++
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
>> index cd55488..b92143a 100644
>> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
>> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
>> @@ -136,6 +136,10 @@ static void fuse_file_put(struct fuse_file *ff, bool sync)
>> path_put(&req->misc.release.path);
>> fuse_put_request(ff->fc, req);
>> } else if (sync) {
>> + /* Must force. Otherwise request could be interrupted,
>> + * but file association in user space remains.
>> + */
>> + req->force = 1;
>> req->background = 0;
>> fuse_request_send(ff->fc, req);
>> path_put(&req->misc.release.path);
>>
>
> Some thought needs to go into this: if RELEASE is interrupted, then
> we should possibly allow that, effectively backgrounding the request.
>
> The synchronous nature is just an optimization and we really don't
> know where we are being interrupted, possibly in a place which very
> much *should* allow interruption.

A fuse daemon who explicitly enables the feature (synchronous release)
would definitely want non-interruptible behaviour of last fput.
Otherwise, it would face the same problem that the feature tries to
resolve: an application was killed and exited, but there is no way to
determine why actual processing of RELEASE will be completed.

As for fuseblk mounts, I'm not so sure. I believed the lack of force=1
was a bug and my patch fixes it. If you think it's safer to preserve old
behaviour, I could set "force" conditionally. May be you could explain
in more details why you think we should allow interruption somewhere.
Any examples or use cases? Btw, fuse_flush also uses force=1. Do you
concerns deal with it as well?

>
> Also fuse really should distinguish fatal and non-fatal interruptions
> and handle them accordingly...

Do you think it's worthy to elaborate this in the scope of "synchronous
release" feature?

Thanks,
Maxim


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-08-25 18:21    [W:0.674 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site