From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@openvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3]      vfs: fix filesystem_sync vs write race on rw=>ro remount v2
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:24:36 +0300
Message-ID: <87sk8idcnv.fsf@openvz.org>
References: <1267230349-8192-1-git-send-email-dmonakhov@openvz.org>
	<1267230349-8192-2-git-send-email-dmonakhov@openvz.org>
	<1267230349-8192-3-git-send-email-dmonakhov@openvz.org>
	<20100302132911.GB4763@quack.suse.cz> <87zl2qddlg.fsf@openvz.org>
	<20100302140621.GC3829@quack.suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-bw0-f209.google.com ([209.85.218.209]:48306 "EHLO
	mail-bw0-f209.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752362Ab0CBOYl (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:24:41 -0500
Received: by bwz1 with SMTP id 1so183631bwz.21
        for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 02 Mar 2010 06:24:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20100302140621.GC3829@quack.suse.cz> (Jan Kara's message of
	"Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:06:22 +0100")
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> writes:

> On Tue 02-03-10 17:04:26, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
>> Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> writes:
>> 
>> > On Sat 27-02-10 03:25:49, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
>> >> +/**
>> >> + * Check whenever is it possible to remount given sb to readonly.
>> >> + * @sb : super block in question
>> >> + *
>> >> + * Caller is responsible to set ST_REMOUNT_RO state before the call.
>> >> + */
>> >> +int fs_may_remount_ro(struct super_block *sb)
>> >> +{
>> >> +	struct vfsmount *mnt;
>> >> +	int ret = 1;
>> >> +	spin_lock(&vfsmount_lock);
>> >> +	list_for_each_entry(mnt, &sb->s_vfsmount, mnt_sb_list) {
>> >> +		ret = !mnt_check_writers(mnt, 0);
>> >> +		if (ret)
>> >> +			break;
>> >> +	}
>> >> +	spin_unlock(&vfsmount_lock);
>> >> +	/*
>> >> +	 * If new writer appears after we have checked all vfsmounts.
>> >> +	 * Then ST_REMOUNT_RO bit will be cleared.
>> >> +	 */
>> >> +	if (!test_bit(ST_REMOUNT_RO, &sb->s_state))
>> >> +		ret = 0;
>> >> +	return ret;
>> >> +}
>> >   This misses the case when the superblock as unlinked-but-open files.
>> > In such case we have to fail remount RO as well. The original
>> > fs_may_remount_ro checks for that..
>> Since file is opened for write one of vfsmnt struct would have non
>> zero write count. So -EBUSY will be returned from fs_may_remount_ro()
>   But file can be open for reading only...
Ohh.. i see. what is the reason to fail RO remount due to unlinked
files? Is this because not all filesystem has orphan list?
Shame on such FS. Seems that i have to also grab write count
in unlink path if i_nlink becomes zero and drop on inode release.