From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Fernando Luis V?zquez Cao <fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
t-sato@yk.jp.nec.com, m-hamaguchi@ys.jp.nec.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Do not allow umounting of frozen filesystems
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:07:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090922110737.GL5858@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A9692CF.80508@oss.ntt.co.jp>
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:06:07PM +0900, Fernando Luis V?zquez Cao wrote:
> Instead of making umount users wait until the filesystem is
> unfreezed return EBUSY, which is very convenient in HA
> configurations.
>
> This could have been implemented at a lower level but it would
> require considerable plumbing in functions such as release_mounts
> which do not return errors.
> + if (sb->s_bdev != NULL) {
> + mutex_lock(&sb->s_bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex);
> + if (sb->s_frozen != SB_UNFROZEN) {
> + mutex_unlock(&sb->s_bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex);
> + return -EBUSY;
> + }
> + }
NAK. First of all, it _partially_ breaks umount -l for no good reason.
If the first fs on the mountpoint is frozen, we fail; if it's deeper
we succeed just fine (and delay actual fs shutdown until the thaw).
As far as I can see, the real problem is that fsthaw ioctl has braindead
API; it takes some opened file on fs in question. Why not do a bdev
ioctl instead? Then we could let umount go ahead just fine, leaving
fs frozen (and not shut down until it thaws). And whoever does thaw
(via bdev ioctl) will automatically trigger the actual fs shutdown.
Just with Christoph's pair of patches...
IOW, I'd rather add two new ioctls (check if frozen/thaw), both by
bdev. On top of the first two patches in this set.
Comments?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-22 11:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-26 5:00 [RFC, PATCH] filesystem freeze: fix sys_umount induced perpetual freeze Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
2009-08-26 17:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-08-27 10:11 ` Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
2009-08-27 11:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-08-27 12:16 ` Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
2009-08-27 14:05 ` [PATCH 1/4] freeze_bdev: kill bd_mount_sem Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
2009-08-27 14:06 ` [PATCH 2/4] freeze_bdev: grab active reference to frozen superblocks Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
2009-08-27 14:06 ` [PATCH 3/4] Do not allow umounting of frozen filesystems Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
2009-09-22 11:07 ` Al Viro [this message]
2009-09-22 15:57 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-09-22 16:46 ` Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao
2009-09-22 16:41 ` Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao
2009-08-27 14:06 ` [PATCH 4/4] filesystem freeze: add ISFROZEN ioctl Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
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=20090922110737.GL5858@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=m-hamaguchi@ys.jp.nec.com \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=t-sato@yk.jp.nec.com \
/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