On Sat, 2015-01-17 at 07:45 -0600, Shirish Pargaonkar wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Sachin Prabhu <sprabhu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Commit
> > c11f1df5003d534fd067f0168bfad7befffb3b5c
> > requires writers to wait for any pending oplock break handler to
> > complete before proceeding to write. This is done by waiting on bit
> > CIFS_INODE_PENDING_OPLOCK_BREAK in cifsFileInfo->flags. This bit is
> > cleared by the oplock break handler job queued on the workqueue once it
> > has completed handling the oplock break allowing writers to proceed with
> > writing to the file.
> >
> > While testing, it was noticed that the filehandle could be closed while
> > there is a pending oplock break which results in the oplock break
> > handler on the cifsiod workqueue being cancelled before it has had a
> > chance to execute and clear the CIFS_INODE_PENDING_OPLOCK_BREAK bit.
> > Any subsequent attempt to write to this file hangs waiting for the
> > CIFS_INODE_PENDING_OPLOCK_BREAK bit to be cleared.
> >
> > We fix this by ensuring that we also clear the bit
> > CIFS_INODE_PENDING_OPLOCK_BREAK when we remove the oplock break handler
> > from the workqueue.
> >
> > The bug was found by Red Hat QA while testing using ltp's fsstress
> > command.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sachin Prabhu <sprabhu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/cifs/file.c | 6 +++++-
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/cifs/file.c b/fs/cifs/file.c
> > index 96b7e9b..74f1287 100644
> > --- a/fs/cifs/file.c
> > +++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
> > @@ -366,6 +366,7 @@ void cifsFileInfo_put(struct cifsFileInfo *cifs_file)
> > struct cifsLockInfo *li, *tmp;
> > struct cifs_fid fid;
> > struct cifs_pending_open open;
> > + bool oplock_break_cancelled;
> >
> > spin_lock(&cifs_file_list_lock);
> > if (--cifs_file->count > 0) {
> > @@ -397,7 +398,7 @@ void cifsFileInfo_put(struct cifsFileInfo *cifs_file)
> > }
> > spin_unlock(&cifs_file_list_lock);
> >
> > - cancel_work_sync(&cifs_file->oplock_break);
> > + oplock_break_cancelled = cancel_work_sync(&cifs_file->oplock_break);
> >
> > if (!tcon->need_reconnect && !cifs_file->invalidHandle) {
> > struct TCP_Server_Info *server = tcon->ses->server;
> > @@ -409,6 +410,9 @@ void cifsFileInfo_put(struct cifsFileInfo *cifs_file)
> > _free_xid(xid);
> > }
> >
> > + if (oplock_break_cancelled)
> > + cifs_done_oplock_break(cifsi);
> > +
> > cifs_del_pending_open(&open);
> >
> > /*
> > --
> > 2.1.0
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
> Does it matter what cancel_work_sync() returns?
> Should cifs_done_oplock_break(cifsi); be called unconditionally?
> Also, should this also to go stable?
Sirish,
This is done so that we delay allowing other writers to write to this
file before we call close on the file handle.
Yes. I think it should also go to stable once it has been accepted by
Steve.
Sachin Prabhu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
