Re: [PATCH v2] fput: Allow calling __fput_sync() from !PF_KTHREAD thread.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 10:04:45PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> __fput_sync() was introduced by commit 4a9d4b024a3102fc ("switch fput to
> task_work_add") with BUG_ON(!(current->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) check, and
> the only user of __fput_sync() was introduced by commit 17c0a5aaffa63da6
> ("make acct_kill() wait for file closing."). However, the latter commit is
> effectively calling __fput_sync() from !PF_KTHREAD thread because of
> schedule_work() call followed by immediate wait_for_completion() call.
> That is, there is no need to defer close_work() to a WQ context. I guess
> that the reason to defer was nothing but to bypass this BUG_ON() check.
> While we need to remain careful about calling __fput_sync(), we can remove
> bypassable BUG_ON() check from __fput_sync().
> 
> If this change is accepted, racy fput()+flush_delayed_fput() introduced
> by commit e2dc9bf3f5275ca3 ("umd: Transform fork_usermode_blob into
> fork_usermode_driver") will be replaced by this raceless __fput_sync().

NAK.  The reason to defer is *NOT* to bypass that BUG_ON() - we really do not
want that thing done on anything other than extremely shallow stack.
Incidentally, why is that thing ever done _not_ in a kernel thread context?



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux