Re: [PATCH] fuse: hold i_mutex in fuse_file_fallocate()

[Anand Avati]

On 6/12/13 4:40 AM, Brian Foster wrote:
> On 06/11/2013 06:59 AM, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
> > Changing size of a file on server and local update (fuse_write_update_size)
> > should be always protected by inode->i_mutex. Otherwise a race like this is
> > possible:
> >
> > 1. Process 'A' calls fallocate(2) to extend file (~FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE).
> > fuse_file_fallocate() sends FUSE_FALLOCATE request to the server.
> > 2. Process 'B' performs ordinary buffered write(2) with a length big enough
> > to extend the file beyond "offset + length" of fallocate call.
> > 3. Process 'A' resumes execution of fuse_file_fallocate() and calls
> > fuse_write_update_size(inode, offset + length). But 'offset + length' was
> > obsoleted by write from previous step.
>
> Hi Maxim,
>
> Doesn't fuse_write_update_size() already handle this particular case by
> only ever extending the size?


As you say, fuse_write_update_size() does seem to protect against the 
case Maxim writes in the commit log.

However, there is still an issue with with truncate(shrinking_offset) 
and fallocate(growing_offset,~FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE) racing, and changing 
inode size in opposing order between file server and in core ->i_size. 
Therefore, grabbing i_mutex is making fallocate and truncate atomic 
against each other.

I guess we just need an updated commit log, and same code change?

Avati


--
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/