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
>>
>>
