From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATH 4/4] ovl: relax lock_rename when moving files between
 work and upper dir
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 17:27:37 +0000
Message-ID: <20161111172737.GS19539@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20161110230557.GM19539@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CAOQ4uxiW=FjRoAaumkjA=5b83rr3Cfu=Yk5nqsDx-qCenHGu3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161110231757.GN19539@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CAOQ4uxgDhyy1z4xJgvA7c_mPvaYiNhi22DHpYM4X2SODtSwP1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161110235444.GO19539@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CAOQ4uxiR6wsk97jQ43hu=hkJ1JQRaerSSEwjVr8tX6ia-yfOgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161111002756.GP19539@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CAOQ4uxibJf7BVSOeRdfcE7VtU2rkrii=Pu9OL0uZPavpudODeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161111154034.GR19539@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CAOQ4uxgU3Pv_SRJhfOGVevuGop=fQ=rPK01UO0ccgy1yEM_hJA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxgU3Pv_SRJhfOGVevuGop=fQ=rPK01UO0ccgy1yEM_hJA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>, Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>, linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:

> I'm afraid so.
> It seems to me that most of the time, lock_rename() is being used in
> overlayfs for no better alternative to lock 2 directories (work+upper).
> 
> My suggestion is a small modification to the overlayfs locking scheme.
> ---Instead of this:
> assert(lock_rename(workdir, upperdir) != NULL));
>    copy_up(src, tmp);
>    vfs_rename(tmp, dst);
> unlock_rename(workdir, upperdir);
> 
> +++Use this:
> assert(lock_rename(workdir, upperdir) != NULL));
> mutex_unlock(s_vfs_rename_mutex);
>    copy_up(src, tmp);
> inode_unlock(upperdir);
> inode_unlock(workdir);
> assert(lock_rename(workdir, upperdir) != NULL));
>   vfs_rename(tmp, dst);
> unlock_rename(workdir, upperdir);
> 
> Miklos,
> 
> Do you see any problem with the proposed scheme?
> Anything that can go wrong while releasing the workdir lock before vfs_rename()?

Huh???

->rename() definitely counts upon parents being locked; please, read the
damn Documentation/filesystems/locking, it's there for a reason.

The real question is why the fsck do you need to lock the workdir for the
duration of copying at all.  O_TMPFILE open + writes there doesn't need
lock_rename() *or* parents being locked.  You need the parent locked when
you link the sucker in place, but that's it.  IDGI...