Re: [RFC, PATCH] filesystem freeze: fix sys_umount induced perpetualfreeze

[Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao]

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 02:00:01PM +0900, Fernando Luis V??zquez Cao wrote:
> > The current locking scheme for filesystem freeze avoids races between
> > freeze_bdev() and do_umount() by taking the s_umount semaphore.
> >
> > If freeze_bdev() wins the race the process that invoked sys_umount
> > will sleep until thaw_bdev releases the semaphore. Unfortunately, this
> > will never happen because thaw_bdev bails out early the
> > bd_fsfreeze_count check having failed (the count is 0).
> >
> > The problem is that the block_device that ioctl_fsthaw() passes to
> > thaw_bdev() is not the one that we freezed because before sleeping in
> > deactivate_super() do_umount() released the dentry (dput()) and freed
> > the vfs mount (free_vfsmnt()).
> >
> > This patch works around this issue by checking the freeze level in
> > do_umount()
>
>
> This should be solved my my freeze locking rewrite:
>
> 	http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=124933489118480&w=2
> 	http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=124933491918517&w=2

Hi Christoph,

Thank you for the pointers. I gave those patches a spin, but it seems
the umount case is not being tackled. I suggest rejecting the umount
for frozen filesystems. What do you think?

I will be replying to this email with a forward port of your patches
along with my own patches that fix the locking for umount and add a
new ioctl to check the freeze state of the filesystem (this is helpful
to create clean resource agents for HA solutions).

- Fernando
--
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/