From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] freeing unlinked file indefinitely delayed
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:17:51 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150713181751.GZ4568@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150712150035.GJ17109@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Hey Al,
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 04:00:35PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 10:41:43AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
>
> > The bug rings a bell for me so I will stick my neck out instead of
> > lurking. Don't you need to sample that link count under the filesystems
> > internal lock in order to avoid an unlink/iget race? I suggest creating
> > a helper to prune disconnected dentries which a filesystem could call in
> > .unlink. That would avoid the risk of unintended side effects with the
> > d_alloc/d_free/icache approach and have provable link count correctness.
>
> For one thing, this patch does *not* check for i_nlink at all.
I agree that no checking of i_nlink has the advantage of brevity.
Anyone who is using dentry.d_fsdata with an open_by_handle workload (if
there are any) will be affected.
> For another, there's no such thing as 'filesystems internal lock' for
> i_nlink protection - that's handled by i_mutex... And what does
> iget() have to do with any of that?
i_mutex is good enough only for local filesystems.
Network/clustered/distributed filesystems need to take an internal lock
to provide exclusion for this .unlink with a .link on another host.
That's where I'm coming from with iget().
Maybe plumbing i_op.unlink with another argument to return i_nlink is
something to consider? A helper for the few filesystems that need to do
this might be good enough in the near term.
Thanks,
Ben
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-13 18:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-08 1:42 [RFC] freeing unliked " Al Viro
2015-07-08 2:39 ` J. Bruce Fields
2015-07-08 15:41 ` Ben Myers
2015-07-12 15:00 ` [RFC] freeing unlinked " Al Viro
2015-07-13 18:17 ` Ben Myers [this message]
2015-07-13 19:56 ` Al Viro
2015-07-14 0:54 ` Ben Myers
2015-07-09 11:17 ` [RFC] freeing unliked " Ian Kent
2015-07-09 11:26 ` Ian Kent
2015-07-12 15:17 ` [RFC] freeing unlinked " Al Viro
2015-07-13 2:30 ` Ian Kent
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150713181751.GZ4568@sgi.com \
--to=bpm@sgi.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome