Hi, On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 12:07 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 11:41:21AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > That's a good point. For all local filesystems I know, holding i_mutex is > > enough for having stable i_size. But for clustered filesystems it > > definitely isn't. They have to hold cluster locks to be able to reliably > > check current i_size (at least OCFS2 does). Looking at what > > inode_newsize_ok currently does, i_size is only used to decide whether > > we need to check for rlimit or not. So we could falsely miss this > > check (other node is truncating the file below new offset)... Hmm, OK, so > > we really need the cluster lock... > > BTW: Mark, don't we need the cluster lock also for the permission > > checks in inode_change_ok? Otherwise we could see: > > Yes, we should have it for all of the checks. It would be good if > the cluster folks came up with proper patches for vfs.git #for-next > to fix up the cluster locking for all of ->setattr. > I already have such a patch, and as per your request, I'm only waiting for your changes in the same area to hit mainline before I merge it into my git tree to avoid conflicts in -next. If you'd like to merge the changes via the vfs tree instead, thats ok too, but let me know which, Steve. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
