From: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>,
bfields@fieldses.org, Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/2 v5] Fixups for l_pid
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:24:05 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cover.1497877897.git.bcodding@redhat.com> (raw)
LTP fcntl tests (fcntl11 fcntl14 fcntl17 fcntl19 fcntl20 fcntl21) have been
failing for NFSv4 mounts due to an unexpected l_pid. What follows are some
fixups:
v2: - Rebase onto linux-next
- Revert back to using the stack in locks_mandatory_area(), and fixup
patch description for 1/3
v3: - The lkp-robot found some serious per_thread_ops performance
regressions for v1 and v2, so this version changes things around to not
acquire a reference to struct pid in fl_nspid for every lock. Instead,
it drops fl_nspid altogether, and defers the lookup of the
namespace-translated pid until it actually needed.
v4: - Instead of looking up the virtual pid by way of referencing the struct
task of the that pid, instead use find_pid_ns() and pid_nr_ns(), which
avoids a the problem where we race to get a reference to the struct task
while it may be freed.
v5: - Squash previous 2/3 and 3/3 to avoid regression where F_GETLK would
return the init_ns pid instead of a translated pid.
Benjamin Coddington (2):
fs/locks: Use allocation rather than the stack in fcntl_getlk()
fs/locks: Remove fl_nspid and use fs-specific l_pid for remote locks
fs/locks.c | 116 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
include/linux/fs.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
--
2.9.3
next reply other threads:[~2017-06-19 13:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-19 13:24 Benjamin Coddington [this message]
2017-06-19 13:24 ` [PATCH 1/2] fs/locks: Use allocation rather than the stack in fcntl_getlk() Benjamin Coddington
2017-06-19 13:24 ` [PATCH 2/2] fs/locks: Remove fl_nspid and use fs-specific l_pid for remote locks Benjamin Coddington
2017-06-19 17:32 ` Jeff Layton
2017-06-20 14:03 ` Benjamin Coddington
2017-06-20 16:09 ` Benjamin Coddington
2017-06-20 17:06 ` Jeff Layton
2017-06-20 19:17 ` Benjamin Coddington
2017-06-20 19:32 ` Jeff Layton
2017-06-20 19:39 ` Benjamin Coddington
2017-06-20 20:13 ` Jeff Layton
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=cover.1497877897.git.bcodding@redhat.com \
--to=bcodding@redhat.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=jlayton@poochiereds.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.