Re: [RFC v3 03/24] fs: distinguish between user initiated freeze and kernel initiated freeze

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

 



On Tue 17-01-23 18:25:40, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> [add linux-xfs to cc on this one]
> 
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 04:33:48PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > Userspace can initiate a freeze call using ioctls. If the kernel decides
> > to freeze a filesystem later it must be able to distinguish if userspace
> > had initiated the freeze, so that it does not unfreeze it later
> > automatically on resume.
> 
> Hm.  Zooming out a bit here, I want to think about how kernel freezes
> should behave...
> 
> > Likewise if the kernel is initiating a freeze on its own it should *not*
> > fail to freeze a filesystem if a user had already frozen it on our behalf.
> 
> ...because kernel freezes can absorb an existing userspace freeze.  Does
> that mean that userspace should be prevented from undoing a kernel
> freeze?  Even in that absorption case?
> 
> Also, should we permit multiple kernel freezes of the same fs at the
> same time?  And if we do allow that, would they nest like freeze used to
> do?
> 
> (My suggestions here are 'yes', 'yes', and '**** no'.)

Yeah, makes sense to me. So I think the mental model to make things safe
is that there are two flags - frozen_by_user, frozen_by_kernel - and the
superblock is kept frozen as long as either of these is set.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux