Re: nfs: infinite loop in fcntl(F_SETLKW)

[J. Bruce Fields]

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.
--
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/