On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:52:47 -0500 Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mar 4, 2014, at 15:37, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:19:44 -0800 > > Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:35:51 -0500 > >>> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 02:10:49PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > >>>>> My expectation is that programs shouldn't mix classic and file-private > >>>>> locks, but Glenn Skinner pointed out to me that that may occur at times > >>>>> even if the programmer isn't aware. > >>>>> > >>>>> Suppose we have a program that uses file-private locks. That program > >>>>> then links in a library that uses classic POSIX locks. If those locks > >>>>> end up conflicting and one is using blocking locks, then the program > >>>>> could end up deadlocked. > >>>>> > >>>>> Try to catch this situation in posix_locks_deadlock by looking for the > >>>>> case where the blocking lock was set by the same process but has a > >>>>> different type, and have the kernel return EDEADLK if that occurs. > >>>>> > >>>>> This check is not perfect. You could (in principle) have a threaded > >>>>> process that is using classic locks in one thread and file-private locks > >>>>> in another. That's not necessarily a deadlockable situation but this > >>>>> check would cause an EDEADLK return in that case. > >>>>> > >>>>> By the same token, you could also have a file-private lock that was > >>>>> inherited across a fork(). If the inheriting process ends up blocking on > >>>>> that while trying to set a classic POSIX lock then this check would miss > >>>>> it and the program would deadlock. > >>>> > >>>> If the caller's not prepared for the library to use classic posix locks, > >>>> then it's not going to know how to recover from this EDEADLCK either, is > >>>> it? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Well, callers should be aware of that if we take this change. The > >>> semantics aren't yet set in stone... > >>> > >>>> I guess I don't understand how this helps anyone. > >>>> > >>>> Has it ever made sense for a library function and its caller to both use > >>>> classic posix locking on the same file without any coordination? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Not really, but that doesn't mean that it isn't done... ;) > >>> > >>>> Besides the first-close problem there's the problem that locks merge, so > >>>> for example you can't hold your own lock across a call to a function > >>>> that grabs and drops a lock on the same file. > >>>> > >>> > >>> It depends, but you're basically correct... > >>> > >>> It's likely that if the above situation occurred with a program using > >>> classic locks, then those locks were silently lost at times. It's also > >>> plausible that when it occurs that no one is aware of it due to the way > >>> POSIX locks work. > >>> > >>> If the program switched to using file-private locks and the library > >>> stays using classic locks (or vice versa), you then potentially trade > >>> that silent loss of locks for a deadlock (since classic and > >>> file-private locks always conflict). > >>> > >>> So, the idea would be to try to catch that situation explicitly and > >>> return a hard error instead of deadlocking. Unfortunately, it's a > >>> little tough to do that in all cases so all this does is try to catch a > >>> subset of them. > >>> > >>> Will it be helpful in the long run? I'm not sure. It seems unlikely to > >>> harm legit use cases though, and might catch some problematic > >>> situations. I can drop this if that's the consensus however. > >> > >> I don't think I like it except in the case where there are no threads > >> (number of tasks sharing the fd table is 1) and where the struct file > >> only has one fd. Otherwise I think it can have false positives. Or > >> am I missing something? > >> > > > > The only case where I think this would hit a false positive is if you > > have a threaded program that's doing something weird like having one > > thread that's setting classic POSIX locks on a file, and one thread > > that isn't. Once you hit a conflict between the two, you'd get back > > EDEADLK on one of them, even though that situation might not actually > > be a deadlock. > > > > That doesn't really seem like a real-world use-case though, so I'm > > generally OK with that potential false-positive. > > > > How do these locks interact with locks_mandatory_area(), and mandatory locking in general? Unless I missed something, it looks to me as if there is a nasty potential for a self-DOS if you set a file-private lock on a file with the mandatory lock bits set and the filesystem is mounted ‘-omand'. > Good catch. I hadn't considered that case properly... Looks like I'll have to fix up locks_mandatory_area() to handle the file-private case. The fact that we'll now have to check for two different lock types makes that a bit more convoluted, but I'll see what can be done. Thanks, -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
