On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 01:15:22PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 20-02-15 14:42:29, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> > > --- a/fs/ioctl.c
> > >> > > +++ b/fs/ioctl.c
> > >> > > @@ -518,6 +518,7 @@ static int ioctl_fioasync(unsigned int fd, struct file *filp,
> > >> > > static int ioctl_fsfreeze(struct file *filp)
> > >> > > {
> > >> > > struct super_block *sb = file_inode(filp)->i_sb;
> > >> > > + int rv;
> > >> > >
> > >> > > if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > >> > > return -EPERM;
> > >> > > @@ -527,22 +528,31 @@ static int ioctl_fsfreeze(struct file *filp)
> > >> > > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > >> > >
> > >> > > /* Freeze */
> > >> > > - if (sb->s_op->freeze_super)
> > >> > > - return sb->s_op->freeze_super(sb);
> > >> > > - return freeze_super(sb);
> > >> > > + if (sb->s_op->freeze_super) {
> > >> > > + rv = sb->s_op->freeze_super(sb);
> > >> > > + if (rv == 0)
> > >> > > + get_task_comm(sb->s_writers.freeze_comm, current);
> > >> > > + } else
> > >> > > + rv = freeze_super(sb);
> > >> > > + return rv;
> > >> > Why don't you just set the name in ioctl_fsfreeze() in both cases?
> > >>
> > >> There are users of freeze_super() in GFS2 unless I'm misreading code.
> > > Yes, there are. The call in fs/gfs2/glops.c is in a call path from
> > > ->freeze_super() handler for GFS2 so that one is handled in
> > > ioctl_fsfreeze() anyway. The call in fs/gfs2/sys.c is a way to freeze
> > > filesystem via sysfs (dunno why GFS2 has to invent its own thing and ioctl
> > > isn't enough). Steven? So having the logic in ioctl_fsfreeze(),
> > > freeze_bdev() and freeze_store() in gfs2 seems to be enough.
> >
> > Jan, my logic is as follows.
> >
> > Recording freezer task name is not filesystem/device specific and
> > thus should be done in generic code. So no changes in GFS2.
> >
> > freeze_super() is generic counterpart to filesystem/device
> > specific ->freeze_super() hook, look how they are paired.
> > It should recore freezer task name, so any future user
> > will not forget to do the same.
> >
> > So it's in ioctl_fsfreeze(), freeze_bdev() and freeze_super().
> Well, but this stores the name in two different levels - once in the top
> level (ioctl_fsfreeze(), freeze_bdev()) and once in a place called from
> there (freeze_super()). That just seems wrong to me. You can just record
> the frozen process in freeze_super() and mandate that if someone manages to
> freeze the fs without calling freeze_super() from his ->freeze_super()
> handler (currently there isn't such filesystem), he is also responsible for
> setting freezer name... Hmm?
Jan I understand you. But I find stranger that GFS will have to record
freezer name.
I'm sending v3, hopefully final.
> > >> > > --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> > >> > > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> > >> > > @@ -1221,6 +1221,8 @@ struct sb_writers {
> > >> > > int frozen; /* Is sb frozen? */
> > >> > > wait_queue_head_t wait_unfrozen; /* queue for waiting for
> > >> > > sb to be thawed */
> > >> > > + /* who froze superblock */
> > >> > > + char freeze_comm[16];
> > >> > Here should be TASK_COMM_LEN, shouldn't it?
> > >>
> > >> It will pull sched.h, dunno if we care about headers anymore.
> > > That's not ideal but IMHO better than having the value hardcoded here.
> > > That is pretty fragile - i.e. think what happens when someone decides to
> > > increase TASK_COMM_LEN...
> >
> > TASK_COMM_LEN is userspace ABI via at least prctl(PR_SET_NAME).
> > I can formally move it to include/uapi/linux/sched.h.
> > This allows to not drag sched.h into fs.h for one tiny define.
> OK, moving the definition would be preferable to me (and IMO also a
> cleanup).
--
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
