cvs commit: src/sys/fs/devfs devfs_vnops.c src/sys/fs/fifofs
fifo_vnops.c src/sys/kern uipc_usrreq.c vfs_vnops.c
kostikbel at gmail.com
Fri Oct 5 12:11:42 PDT 2007
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 01:50:39PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday 04 October 2007 09:29:25 pm Jeff Roberson wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 03 October 2007 07:48:00 pm Jeff Roberson wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, John Baldwin wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> jhb 2007-10-03 21:06:05 UTC
> > >>>
> > >>> FreeBSD src repository
> > >>>
> > >>> Modified files: (Branch: RELENG_6)
> > >>> sys/fs/devfs devfs_vnops.c
> > >>> sys/fs/fifofs fifo_vnops.c
> > >>> sys/kern uipc_usrreq.c vfs_vnops.c
> > >>> sys/vm vnode_pager.c
> > >>> Log:
> > >>> MFC: Always use an exclusive lock on the leaf vnode during an open()
> > >>> shared lookups are enabled. This closes a few races including a race
> > > where
> > >>> concurrent opens of a fifo could result in different v_fifoinfo
> > > structures
> > >>> in different threads.
> > >>
> > >> Long term we should really look for a better solution to this problem.
> > >> There are a number of was to improve snapshots in ffs by fixing shared
> > >> locking.
> > >
> > > I don't disagree. The fifo case can be fixed easily enough in the fifo
> > > by using fifo_mtx to protect v_fifoinfo perhaps (or doing an upgrade on
> > > vnode lock?), but for the MFC I didn't want to have to fix each of the
> > > with open(2). Probably better to fix it more properly in HEAD first.
> > Definitely someting for head. Were there any others that you ran into
> > besides v_fifoinfo? We should audit this more closely anyhow. I have
> > been reluctant to push too much shared locking into VFS because it's not
> > been so carefully studied.
> I just saw v_fifoinfo, but Pawel's original commit referenced updates to
> v_writecount, etc. The v_writecount one is in vn_open() itself:
> if ((error = VOP_OPEN(vp, fmode, cred, td, fp)) != 0)
> goto bad;
> if (fmode & FWRITE)
> *flagp = fmode;
> ASSERT_VOP_ELOCKED(vp, "vn_open_cred");
> if (!mpsafe)
> return (0);
> If you just held a shared lock there, you could use atomic ops for
> vp->v_writecount (and still hold at least a shared vnode lock everywhere
> v_writecount is updated) and still be able to read vp->v_writecount safely
> while holding an exclusive lock on the vnode.
Another is the vm/vnode_pager.c handling of the v_object.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/attachments/20071005/bc273c42/attachment.pgp
More information about the cvs-src