Re: [RFC PATCH v2 02/19] fs/locks: Add Exclusive flag to user Layout lease

Jeff Layton
2019-08-14T14:15:20Z

On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 15:58 -0700, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
>
> Add an exclusive lease flag which indicates that the layout mechanism
> can not be broken.
>
> Exclusive layout leases allow the file system to know that pages may be
> GUP pined and that attempts to change the layout, ie truncate, should be
> failed.
>
> A process which attempts to break it's own exclusive lease gets an
> EDEADLOCK return to help determine that this is likely a programming bug
> vs someone else holding a resource.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> ---
> fs/locks.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
> include/linux/fs.h | 1 +
> include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index ad17c6ffca06..0c7359cdab92 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -626,6 +626,8 @@ static int lease_init(struct file *filp, long type, unsigned int flags,
> fl->fl_flags = FL_LEASE;
> if (flags & FL_LAYOUT)
> fl->fl_flags |= FL_LAYOUT;
> + if (flags & FL_EXCLUSIVE)
> + fl->fl_flags |= FL_EXCLUSIVE;
> fl->fl_start = 0;
> fl->fl_end = OFFSET_MAX;
> fl->fl_ops = NULL;
> @@ -1619,6 +1621,14 @@ int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type)
> list_for_each_entry_safe(fl, tmp, &ctx->flc_lease, fl_list) {
> if (!leases_conflict(fl, new_fl))
> continue;
> + if (fl->fl_flags & FL_EXCLUSIVE) {
> + error = -ETXTBSY;
> + if (new_fl->fl_pid == fl->fl_pid) {
> + error = -EDEADLOCK;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + continue;
> + }
> if (want_write) {
> if (fl->fl_flags & FL_UNLOCK_PENDING)
> continue;
> @@ -1634,6 +1644,13 @@ int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type)
> locks_delete_lock_ctx(fl, &dispose);
> }
>
> + /* We differentiate between -EDEADLOCK and -ETXTBSY so the above loop
> + * continues with -ETXTBSY looking for a potential deadlock instead.
> + * If deadlock is not found go ahead and return -ETXTBSY.
> + */
> + if (error == -ETXTBSY)
> + goto out;
> +
> if (list_empty(&ctx->flc_lease))
> goto out;
>
> @@ -2044,9 +2061,11 @@ static int do_fcntl_add_lease(unsigned int fd, struct file *filp, long arg)
> * to revoke the lease in break_layout() And this is done by using
> * F_WRLCK in the break code.
> */
> - if (arg == F_LAYOUT) {
> + if ((arg & F_LAYOUT) == F_LAYOUT) {
> + if ((arg & F_EXCLUSIVE) == F_EXCLUSIVE)
> + flags |= FL_EXCLUSIVE;
> arg = F_RDLCK;
> - flags = FL_LAYOUT;
> + flags |= FL_LAYOUT;
> }
>
> fl = lease_alloc(filp, arg, flags);
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index dd60d5be9886..2e41ce547913 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -1005,6 +1005,7 @@ static inline struct file *get_file(struct file *f)
> #define FL_UNLOCK_PENDING 512 /* Lease is being broken */
> #define FL_OFDLCK 1024 /* lock is "owned" by struct file */
> #define FL_LAYOUT 2048 /* outstanding pNFS layout or user held pin */
> +#define FL_EXCLUSIVE 4096 /* Layout lease is exclusive */
>
> #define FL_CLOSE_POSIX (FL_POSIX | FL_CLOSE)
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> index baddd54f3031..88b175ceccbc 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> @@ -176,6 +176,8 @@ struct f_owner_ex {
>
> #define F_LAYOUT 16 /* layout lease to allow longterm pins such as
> RDMA */
> +#define F_EXCLUSIVE 32 /* layout lease is exclusive */
> + /* FIXME or shoudl this be F_EXLCK??? */
>
> /* operations for bsd flock(), also used by the kernel implementation */
> #define LOCK_SH 1 /* shared lock */

This interface just seems weird to me. The existing F_*LCK values aren't
really set up to be flags, but are enumerated values (even if there are
some gaps on some arches). For instance, on parisc and sparc:

/* for posix fcntl() and lockf() */
#define F_RDLCK 01
#define F_WRLCK 02
#define F_UNLCK 03

While your new flag values are well above these values, it's still a bit
sketchy to do what you're proposing from a cross-platform interface
standpoint.

I think this would be a lot cleaner if you weren't overloading the
F_SETLEASE command with new flags, and instead added new
F_SETLAYOUT/F_GETLAYOUT cmd values.

You'd then be free to define a new set of "arg" values for use with
layouts, and there's be a clear distinction interface-wise between
setting a layout and a lease.

--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>