On 21.12.2021 15:02, Namjae Jeon wrote: > 2021-12-19 18:34 GMT+09:00, Vasily Averin <vvs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> To avoid possible deadlock ksmbd should process locks asynchronously. >> Callers expecting vfs_file_locks() to return asynchronously should only >> use F_SETLK, not F_SETLKW. > Should I check this patch instead of > [PATCH] ksmbd: force "fail immediately" flag on fs with its own ->lock ? no, these patches are independent and both ones are required. current patch fixes incorrect kernel thread behaviour: kernel threads should not use F_SETLKW for locking requests. "[PATCH] ksmbd: force "fail immediately" flag on fs with its own ->lock" tries to workaround the incorrect behaviour of some exported filesystems. Currently this way is used in nfsd and lockd, however it is not fully correct, and I still search some better solution, so perhaps '[PATCH] ksmbd: force "fail immediately" flag on fs with its own ->lock' will be dropped later. Thank you, Vasily Averin >> Signed-off-by: Vasily Averin <vvs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> fs/ksmbd/smb2pdu.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/ksmbd/smb2pdu.c b/fs/ksmbd/smb2pdu.c >> index 0c020deb76bb..34f333549767 100644 >> --- a/fs/ksmbd/smb2pdu.c >> +++ b/fs/ksmbd/smb2pdu.c >> @@ -6646,13 +6646,13 @@ static int smb2_set_flock_flags(struct file_lock >> *flock, int flags) >> switch (flags) { >> case SMB2_LOCKFLAG_SHARED: >> ksmbd_debug(SMB, "received shared request\n"); >> - cmd = F_SETLKW; >> + cmd = F_SETLK; >> flock->fl_type = F_RDLCK; >> flock->fl_flags |= FL_SLEEP; >> break; >> case SMB2_LOCKFLAG_EXCLUSIVE: >> ksmbd_debug(SMB, "received exclusive request\n"); >> - cmd = F_SETLKW; >> + cmd = F_SETLK; >> flock->fl_type = F_WRLCK; >> flock->fl_flags |= FL_SLEEP; >> break; >> -- >> 2.25.1 >> >>