Re: [PATCH 4/9 v8] fs: New helper legitimize_mntget() for getting a legitimize mnt

[NeilBrown <neilb-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org>]

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:08:32 +0800 Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:

> New helper legitimize_mntget for getting a mnt without setting
> MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT | MNT_UMOUNT | MNT_DOOMED, otherwise return NULL.
> 
> v8, same as v6
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> ---
>  fs/namespace.c        | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/mount.h |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
> index 2b8aa15..842cf57 100644
> --- a/fs/namespace.c
> +++ b/fs/namespace.c
> @@ -1153,6 +1153,25 @@ struct vfsmount *mntget(struct vfsmount *mnt)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(mntget);
>  
> +struct vfsmount *legitimize_mntget(struct vfsmount *vfsmnt)
> +{
> +	struct mount *mnt;
> +
> +	if (vfsmnt == NULL)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	read_seqlock_excl(&mount_lock);
> +	mnt = real_mount(vfsmnt);
> +	if (vfsmnt->mnt_flags & (MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT | MNT_UMOUNT | MNT_DOOMED))
> +		vfsmnt = NULL;
> +	else
> +		mnt_add_count(mnt, 1);
> +	read_sequnlock_excl(&mount_lock);
> +
> +	return vfsmnt;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(legitimize_mntget);
> +
>  struct vfsmount *mnt_clone_internal(struct path *path)
>  {
>  	struct mount *p;
> diff --git a/include/linux/mount.h b/include/linux/mount.h
> index f822c3c..8ae9dc0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mount.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mount.h
> @@ -79,6 +79,7 @@ extern void mnt_drop_write(struct vfsmount *mnt);
>  extern void mnt_drop_write_file(struct file *file);
>  extern void mntput(struct vfsmount *mnt);
>  extern struct vfsmount *mntget(struct vfsmount *mnt);
> +extern struct vfsmount *legitimize_mntget(struct vfsmount *vfsmnt);
>  extern struct vfsmount *mnt_clone_internal(struct path *path);
>  extern int __mnt_is_readonly(struct vfsmount *mnt);
>  

It is unfortunate that we seem to have to take the mount_lock global
lock on every nfs request.  I wonder if we can avoid that....

What if we did:

  seq = 0;
retry:
  read_seqbegin_or_lock(&mount_lock, &seq);
  if (vfsmnt->mnt_flags & (MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT | MNT_UMOUNT | MNT_DOOMED))
      vfsmnt = NULL;
  else if (need_seqretry(&mount_lock, seq);
      goto retry;
  else {
	mnt_add_count(&mnt, 1);
        if (need_seqretry(&mount_lock, seq) ||
	    vfsmnt->mnt_flags & (MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT | MNT_UMOUNT |
                                 MNT_DOOMED)) {
             mnt_add_count(&mnt, -1);
             goto retry;
        }
   }
   done_seqretry(&mount_lock, seq);


Is there any risk from having a temporarily elevated mnt_count there?
I can't see one, but there is clearly some complexity in managing that
count.

Thanks,
NeilBrown
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html