On 27/6/24 23:16, Christian Brauner wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 01:54:18PM GMT, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 27-06-24 09:11:14, Ian Kent wrote:
On 27/6/24 04:47, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 04:07:49PM -0400, Lucas Karpinski wrote:
+++ b/fs/namespace.c
@@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ static struct kmem_cache *mnt_cache __ro_after_init;
static DECLARE_RWSEM(namespace_sem);
static HLIST_HEAD(unmounted); /* protected by namespace_sem */
static LIST_HEAD(ex_mountpoints); /* protected by namespace_sem */
+static bool lazy_unlock = false; /* protected by namespace_sem */
That's a pretty ugly way of doing it. How about this?
Ha!
That was my original thought but I also didn't much like changing all the
callers.
I don't really like the proliferation of these small helper functions either
but if everyone
is happy to do this I think it's a great idea.
So I know you've suggested removing synchronize_rcu_expedited() call in
your comment to v2. But I wonder why is it safe? I *thought*
synchronize_rcu_expedited() is there to synchronize the dropping of the
last mnt reference (and maybe something else) - see the comment at the
beginning of mntput_no_expire() - and this change would break that?
Yes. During umount mnt->mnt_ns will be set to NULL with namespace_sem
and the mount seqlock held. mntput() doesn't acquire namespace_sem as
that would get rather problematic during path lookup. It also elides
lock_mount_hash() by looking at mnt->mnt_ns because that's set to NULL
when a mount is actually unmounted.
So iirc synchronize_rcu_expedited() will ensure that it is actually the
system call that shuts down all the mounts it put on the umounted list
and not some other task that also called mntput() as that would cause
pretty blatant EBUSY issues.
So callers that come before mnt->mnt_ns = NULL simply return of course
but callers that come after mnt->mnt_ns = NULL will acquire
lock_mount_hash() _under_ rcu_read_lock(). These callers see an elevated
reference count and thus simply return while namespace_lock()'s
synchronize_rcu_expedited() prevents the system call from making
progress.
But I also don't see it working without risk even with MNT_DETACH. It
still has potential to cause issues in userspace. Any program that
always passes MNT_DETACH simply to ensure that even in the very rare
case that a mount might still be busy is unmounted might now end up
seeing increased EBUSY failures for mounts that didn't actually need to
be unmounted with MNT_DETACH. In other words, this is only inocuous if
userspace only uses MNT_DETACH for stuff they actually know is busy when
they're trying to unmount. And I don't think that's the case.
I'm sorry but how does an MNT_DETACH umount system call return EBUSY, I
can't
see how that can happen?
I have used lazy umount a lot over the years and I haven't had problems
with it.
There is a tendency to think there might be problems using it but I've
never been
able to spot them.
Ian
