Re: [PATCH] fs: fix filesystem_sync vs write race on rw=>ro remount
From: Dmitry Monakhov
Date: Sun Jan 24 2010 - 18:01:42 EST
Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:15:51AM +0300, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
>> > It's not a solution. You get an _attempted_ remount ro making writes
>> > fail, even if it's going to be unsuccessful. No go...
>> We have two options for new writers:
>> 1) Fail it via -EROFS
>> Yes, remount may fail, but it is really unlikely.
>> 2) Defer(block) new writers on until we complete or fail remount
>> for example like follows. Do you like second solution ?
> Umm... I wonder what the locking implications would be... Frankly,
> I suspect that what we really want is this:
> * per-superblock write count of some kind, bumped when we decide
> that writeback is inevitable and dropped when we are done with it (the
> same thing goes for async part of unlink(), etc.)
> * fs_may_remount_ro() checking that write count
> So basically we try to push those short-term writers to completion and
> if new ones had come while we'd been doing that (or some are really
> stuck) we fail remount with -EBUSY.
> As a short-term solution the second patch would do probably (-stable and .33),
> but in the next cycle I'd rather see something addressing the real problem.
> fs_may_remount_ro() in its current form is really broken by design - it
> should not scan any lists (which is where your race comes from, BTW)
This is not actually true. The race happens not only because
fs_may_remount_ro() is not atomic, but because we have two stages
Even when we make first stage atomic, we still have race between
second stage and new writers.
BTW: Your idea about per-sb counter may be useful here but
it must be not reference count, but it may be used like i_version
cur = mnt->mnt_sb->s_wr_count;
if (cur != mnt->mnt_sb->s_wr_count)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/