On 8/14/2014 22:00, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 20:26:03 +0800
> Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 8/12/2014 00:19, Jeff Layton wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 23:38:25 +0800
>>> Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Commit d5b9026a67 ([PATCH] knfsd: locks: flag NFSv4-owned locks) using
>>>> fl_lmops field in file_lock for checking nfsd4 lockowner.
>>>>
>>>> But, commit 1a747ee0cc (locks: don't call ->copy_lock methods on return
>>>> of conflicting locks) causes the fl_lmops of conflock always be NULL.
>>>>
>>>> Also, commit 0996905f93 (lockd: posix_test_lock() should not call
>>>> locks_copy_lock()) caused the fl_lmops of conflock always be NULL too.
>>>>
>>>> v2: Only change the order from 3/3 to 1/3 now.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/lockd/svclock.c | 2 +-
>>>> fs/locks.c | 25 ++++++-------------------
>>>> include/linux/fs.h | 6 ------
>>>> 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
>>>> index ab798a8..e1f209c 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
>>>> @@ -677,7 +677,7 @@ nlmsvc_update_deferred_block(struct nlm_block *block, struct file_lock *conf,
>>>> block->b_flags |= B_TIMED_OUT;
>>>> if (conf) {
>>>> if (block->b_fl)
>>>> - __locks_copy_lock(block->b_fl, conf);
>>>> + locks_copy_lock(block->b_fl, conf);
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
>>>> index 717fbc4..91b0f03 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/locks.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/locks.c
>>>> @@ -266,35 +266,22 @@ static void locks_copy_private(struct file_lock *new, struct file_lock *fl)
>>>> new->fl_lmops = fl->fl_lmops;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -/*
>>>> - * Initialize a new lock from an existing file_lock structure.
>>>> - */
>>>> -void __locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *new, const struct file_lock *fl)
>>>> +void locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *new, struct file_lock *fl)
>>>> {
>>>> + locks_release_private(new);
>>>> +
>>>> new->fl_owner = fl->fl_owner;
>>>> new->fl_pid = fl->fl_pid;
>>>> - new->fl_file = NULL;
>>>> + new->fl_file = fl->fl_file;
>>>> new->fl_flags = fl->fl_flags;
>>>> new->fl_type = fl->fl_type;
>>>> new->fl_start = fl->fl_start;
>>>> new->fl_end = fl->fl_end;
>>>> new->fl_ops = NULL;
>>>> new->fl_lmops = NULL;
>>>> -}
>>>> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(__locks_copy_lock);
>>>> -
>>>> -void locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *new, struct file_lock *fl)
>>>> -{
>>>> - locks_release_private(new);
>>>> -
>>>> - __locks_copy_lock(new, fl);
>>>> - new->fl_file = fl->fl_file;
>>>> - new->fl_ops = fl->fl_ops;
>>>> - new->fl_lmops = fl->fl_lmops;
>>>>
>>>> locks_copy_private(new, fl);
>>>> }
>>>
>>> (cc'ing Joe Perches)
>>>
>>> Ok, so you're basically just reverting 1a747ee0cc11a19. The catch there
>>> is that you now need to ensure that any conflock structures are
>>> properly initialized before passing them to locks_copy_lock.
>>>
>>> The nfsv4 server code currently doesn't do that and it will need to be
>>> fixed to do so or that will be a regression.
>>
>> I don't think so.
>> locks_alloc_lock() has initialize the file_lock struct,
>> the same as locks_init_lock().
>>
>> I will clean the duplicate initialize for file_lock in nfs4state.c in v3.
>>
>
> Ahh, you're correct. Yes, please just remove that instead. You might
> also want to look for other places in the kernel that call
> locks_init_lock unnecessarily. We might as well get rid of all of
> them while we're looking.
OK, I will review those codes where calling locks_init_lock().
>
>>> For the NLM code, Joe Perches has proposed a patch to remove the
>>> conflock parameter from lm_grant since the callers always pass in NULL
>>> anyway. You may want to pull in his patch and rebase yours on top of it
>>> since it'll remove that __locks_copy_lock call altogether.
>>>
>>> Joe, is Andrew merging that patch or do I need to pull it into the
>>> locks tree?
>>
>> I will update this patch based on that patch and your new patch for locks.c.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Kinglong Mee
>>
>
> Thanks. I wiggled Joe's patch on top of my current set of locking
> patches and will plan to merge it for v3.18 unless there are any
> objections.
I saw your patch, thank you very much.
thanks,
Kinglong Mee
>
>>>
>>>> -
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(locks_copy_lock);
>>>>
>>>> static inline int flock_translate_cmd(int cmd) {
>>>> @@ -718,7 +705,7 @@ posix_test_lock(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *fl)
>>>> break;
>>>> }
>>>> if (cfl) {
>>>> - __locks_copy_lock(fl, cfl);
>>>> + locks_copy_lock(fl, cfl);
>>>> if (cfl->fl_nspid)
>>>> fl->fl_pid = pid_vnr(cfl->fl_nspid);
>>>> } else
>>>> @@ -921,7 +908,7 @@ static int __posix_lock_file(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request, str
>>>> if (!posix_locks_conflict(request, fl))
>>>> continue;
>>>> if (conflock)
>>>> - __locks_copy_lock(conflock, fl);
>>>> + locks_copy_lock(conflock, fl);
>>>> error = -EAGAIN;
>>>> if (!(request->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP))
>>>> goto out;
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
>>>> index e11d60c..ced023d 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
>>>> @@ -941,7 +941,6 @@ void locks_free_lock(struct file_lock *fl);
>>>> extern void locks_init_lock(struct file_lock *);
>>>> extern struct file_lock * locks_alloc_lock(void);
>>>> extern void locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *, struct file_lock *);
>>>> -extern void __locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *, const struct file_lock *);
>>>> extern void locks_remove_posix(struct file *, fl_owner_t);
>>>> extern void locks_remove_file(struct file *);
>>>> extern void locks_release_private(struct file_lock *);
>>>> @@ -1001,11 +1000,6 @@ static inline void locks_init_lock(struct file_lock *fl)
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -static inline void __locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *new, struct file_lock *fl)
>>>> -{
>>>> - return;
>>>> -}
>>>> -
>>>> static inline void locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *new, struct file_lock *fl)
>>>> {
>>>> return;
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
--
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
