On 08/21/2014 11:50 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:40 AM, David Jeffery <djeffery@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 08/20/2014 08:28 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: >>> >>> What guarantees that this does not lead to silent corruption of the file >>> if there are outstanding write requests? >>> >> >> Do you have a particular scenario in mind you are concerned about? >> >> Right before the code the patch modifies, nfs_sync_mapping() is called. >> Any writes started before the unlock operation began have already been >> flushed, so we shouldn't have a corruption case of writes from before >> the unlock began being sent after the unlock is complete. >> >> Are you concerned about some other nfs4 writes being started while we >> initially waited on the counter? Such a write racing with the unlock > > No. I'm worried about the writes that have been started, but which are > now completing in the background while the lock is being freed. > >> going ahead instead of erroring out could initially fail from a wrong >> state ID, but should retry with the new state. Is there something I've >> overlooked? > > Loss of lock atomicity due to the fact that the writes are completing > after the lock was released. > I don't think my patches break lock atomicity, unless I've completely misunderstood nfs_sync_mapping()'s behavior. The background writes should have already been waited for by nfs_sync_mapping() at the beginning of do_unlk(). nfs_sync_mapping() would call nfs_wb_all() which calls sync_inode() with WB_SYNC_ALL, so it's going to push out any dirty data and wait for any writes to complete. Only after the writes are complete do we go on to call nfs_iocounter_wait(). If there is a write causing us to want to wait in nfs_iocounter_wait() and which my patches no longer wait for, the write was done after nfs_sync_mapping() started, which means the write occurred after the unlock-initiating call began. Such a write should have no atomicity guarantee with holding the lock, and may complete before or after the lock is released. The writes which require atomicity are already completed before getting to the call of nfs_iocounter_wait() and the code my patch changes. -- 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
