Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:06:27 +0100
From:      Martin Matuska <mm@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: 8.1-STABLE: problem with unmounting ZFS snapshots
Message-ID:  <4CDE7133.6010803@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <4CDE6823.6080907@freebsd.org>
References:  <D9ABDE54892A4D9285FE7FFA6E1B1B69@vosz.local>	<4CDD2F5F.2000902@freebsd.org>	<FD7FC6ED159249338A04BE125941D146@vosz.local>	<4CDD4EB4.40004@freebsd.org> <4CDDF77B.90708@FreeBSD.org> <4CDE6823.6080907@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
No, this is not good for us. Solaris does not allow "mounting" of
snapshots on any vnode, like we do. Solaris has them only in
.zfs/snapshots. This allows us to have read-only mounts without even
mounting the parent zfs.

Before v15 we have been happy with that code and had no issues :-)

I have a very simple testcase where just fixing the VFS_RELE breaks our
forced unmount. Let's say we use the correct VFS_RELE in zfs_vfsops.c:
VFS_RELE(vfsp->mnt_vnodecovered->v_vfsp);

Now let's say you have a mounted filesystem (e.g. md) under /mnt:
/dev/md5 on /mnt (ufs, local)

# mkdir /mnt/test
# mount -t zfs tank@t2 /mnt/test
# umount -f /mnt

Now you will hang because the second VFS_HOLD. So I stick to my opinion
that this "extra protection" is more a problem than a solution in our
case and it should be commented out.

Dňa 13.11.2010 11:27, Andriy Gapon  wrote / napísal(a):
> on 13/11/2010 04:27 Martin Matuska said the following:
>> Yes, this is indeed a leak introduced by importing onnv revision 9214
>> and it exists in perforce as well - very easy to reproduce.
>>
>> # mount -t zfs test@t1 /mnt
>> # umount /mnt (-> hang)
>>
>> http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6604992
>> http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6810367
>>
>> This is not compatible with mounting snapshots outside mounted ZFS and I
>> was not able to reproduce the errors defined in 6604992 and 6810367
>> (they are Solaris-specific). I suggest we comment out this code (from
>> head, later MFC and p4 as well).
>>
>> Patch (should work with HEAD and 8-STABLE):
>> http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/zfs/zfs_vfsops.c.patch
> 
> Not quite sure, but perhaps it's better to make the logic in each place match
> the other.  That is, I see that the code does hold on a filesystem of a covered
> vnode, but does rele on a parent ZFS filesystem.
> Or is this kind of protection not needed at all for FreeBSD?
> 



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CDE7133.6010803>