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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).