Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 16:48:32 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, pho@freebsd.org Subject: Re: close() of an flock'd file is not atomic Message-ID: <201207091648.32306.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20120709204007.GW2338@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <201203071318.08241.jhb@freebsd.org> <201207091138.15655.jhb@freebsd.org> <20120709204007.GW2338@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, July 09, 2012 4:40:07 pm Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:38:15AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > Here now is the tested version of the actual fix after the vn_open_vnode() > > changes were committed. This is hopefully easier to parse now. > > > > http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/patches/flock_open_close4.patch > > Do you need atomic op to set FHASLOCK in vn_open_cred ? I do not think > *fp can be shared with other thread there. Oh, that's true. I had just preserved it from the original code. > I thought that vrele() call in vn_closefile() would need a > vn_start_write() or vn_start_secondary_write() dance around it, but > now I believe it is not needed, since ufs_inactive() handles start of > secondary writes on its own. Still, it would be good if Peter could test > the patch with snapshotting load just be to safe there. Ok. I'm happy to have pho@ test it, but the test will have to use file locking along with snapshots to exercise this case. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201207091648.32306.jhb>