Like flock(2), the fcntl(2) OFD locks also use struct file addresses as
the lock owner ID, and also should be unlocked on file release.
The commit 37fb3a30b462 ("fuse: fix flock") fixed the flock unlocking
issue on file release. This commit aims to fix the OFD lock by reusing
the release_flag 'FUSE_RELEASE_FLOCK_UNLOCK'. The FUSE daemons should
unlock both OFD locks and flocks in the FUSE_RELEASE handler.
To make it more clear, rename 'ff->flock' to 'ff->unlock_on_release', as
it would be used for both flock and OFD lock. It will be set true if the
value of fl->fl_owner equals to the struct file address.
Fixes: 37fb3a30b462 ("fuse: fix flock")
Signed-off-by: Jiachen Zhang <[email protected]>
---
fs/fuse/file.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
fs/fuse/fuse_i.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
index de37a3a06a71..7fe9d405969e 100644
--- a/fs/fuse/file.c
+++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
@@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ void fuse_file_release(struct inode *inode, struct fuse_file *ff,
fuse_prepare_release(fi, ff, open_flags, opcode);
- if (ff->flock) {
+ if (ff->unlock_on_release) {
ra->inarg.release_flags |= FUSE_RELEASE_FLOCK_UNLOCK;
ra->inarg.lock_owner = fuse_lock_owner_id(ff->fm->fc, id);
}
@@ -2650,8 +2650,19 @@ static int fuse_file_lock(struct file *file, int cmd, struct file_lock *fl)
} else {
if (fc->no_lock)
err = posix_lock_file(file, fl, NULL);
- else
+ else {
+ /*
+ * Like flock, the OFD lock also uses the struct
+ * file address as the fl_owner, and should be
+ * unlocked on file release.
+ */
+ if (file == fl->fl_owner) {
+ struct fuse_file *ff = file->private_data;
+
+ ff->unlock_on_release = true;
+ }
err = fuse_setlk(file, fl, 0);
+ }
}
return err;
}
@@ -2668,7 +2679,7 @@ static int fuse_file_flock(struct file *file, int cmd, struct file_lock *fl)
struct fuse_file *ff = file->private_data;
/* emulate flock with POSIX locks */
- ff->flock = true;
+ ff->unlock_on_release = true;
err = fuse_setlk(file, fl, 1);
}
diff --git a/fs/fuse/fuse_i.h b/fs/fuse/fuse_i.h
index 9b7fc7d3c7f1..574f67bd5684 100644
--- a/fs/fuse/fuse_i.h
+++ b/fs/fuse/fuse_i.h
@@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ struct fuse_file {
wait_queue_head_t poll_wait;
/** Has flock been performed on this file? */
- bool flock:1;
+ bool unlock_on_release:1;
};
/** One input argument of a request */
--
2.20.1
Tested-By: Jochen Friedrich <[email protected]>
On an unpatched Kernel, running Volume migrations in QEMU on a fuse
backed file (linke Quobyte) fails with 'Failed to get "consistent read"
lock' error messages.
With this patch applied, all works well :-)
Best regards, Jochen
Am 08.06.2023 um 10:46 schrieb Jiachen Zhang:
> Like flock(2), the fcntl(2) OFD locks also use struct file addresses as
> the lock owner ID, and also should be unlocked on file release.
>
> The commit 37fb3a30b462 ("fuse: fix flock") fixed the flock unlocking
> issue on file release. This commit aims to fix the OFD lock by reusing
> the release_flag 'FUSE_RELEASE_FLOCK_UNLOCK'. The FUSE daemons should
> unlock both OFD locks and flocks in the FUSE_RELEASE handler.
>
> To make it more clear, rename 'ff->flock' to 'ff->unlock_on_release', as
> it would be used for both flock and OFD lock. It will be set true if the
> value of fl->fl_owner equals to the struct file address.
>
> Fixes: 37fb3a30b462 ("fuse: fix flock")
> Signed-off-by: Jiachen Zhang <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/fuse/file.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
> fs/fuse/fuse_i.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
> index de37a3a06a71..7fe9d405969e 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
> @@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ void fuse_file_release(struct inode *inode, struct fuse_file *ff,
>
> fuse_prepare_release(fi, ff, open_flags, opcode);
>
> - if (ff->flock) {
> + if (ff->unlock_on_release) {
> ra->inarg.release_flags |= FUSE_RELEASE_FLOCK_UNLOCK;
> ra->inarg.lock_owner = fuse_lock_owner_id(ff->fm->fc, id);
> }
> @@ -2650,8 +2650,19 @@ static int fuse_file_lock(struct file *file, int cmd, struct file_lock *fl)
> } else {
> if (fc->no_lock)
> err = posix_lock_file(file, fl, NULL);
> - else
> + else {
> + /*
> + * Like flock, the OFD lock also uses the struct
> + * file address as the fl_owner, and should be
> + * unlocked on file release.
> + */
> + if (file == fl->fl_owner) {
> + struct fuse_file *ff = file->private_data;
> +
> + ff->unlock_on_release = true;
> + }
> err = fuse_setlk(file, fl, 0);
> + }
> }
> return err;
> }
> @@ -2668,7 +2679,7 @@ static int fuse_file_flock(struct file *file, int cmd, struct file_lock *fl)
> struct fuse_file *ff = file->private_data;
>
> /* emulate flock with POSIX locks */
> - ff->flock = true;
> + ff->unlock_on_release = true;
> err = fuse_setlk(file, fl, 1);
> }
>
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/fuse_i.h b/fs/fuse/fuse_i.h
> index 9b7fc7d3c7f1..574f67bd5684 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/fuse_i.h
> +++ b/fs/fuse/fuse_i.h
> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ struct fuse_file {
> wait_queue_head_t poll_wait;
>
> /** Has flock been performed on this file? */
> - bool flock:1;
> + bool unlock_on_release:1;
> };
>
> /** One input argument of a request */
>
> From patchwork Thu Jun 8 08:46:09 2023
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Patchwork-Submitter: Jiachen Zhang <[email protected]>
> X-Patchwork-Id: 13271765
> Return-Path: <[email protected]>
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
> aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
> Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18])
> by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5194CC7EE25
> for <[email protected]>;
> Thu, 8 Jun 2023 08:47:37 +0000 (UTC)
> Received: ([email protected]) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
> id S235560AbjFHIrf (ORCPT
> <rfc822;[email protected]>);
> Thu, 8 Jun 2023 04:47:35 -0400
> Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43358 "EHLO
> lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
> with ESMTP id S235284AbjFHIrc (ORCPT
> <rfc822;[email protected]>);
> Thu, 8 Jun 2023 04:47:32 -0400
> Received: from mail-pf1-x432.google.com (mail-pf1-x432.google.com
> [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432])
> by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B2062733
> for <[email protected]>;
> Thu, 8 Jun 2023 01:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: by mail-pf1-x432.google.com with SMTP id
> d2e1a72fcca58-651f2f38634so284228b3a.0
> for <[email protected]>;
> Thu, 08 Jun 2023 01:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
> d=bytedance.com; s=google; t=1686214051; x=1688806051;
> h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to
> :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date
> :message-id:reply-to;
> bh=M478tZ0BJPqFdShribkt4DG9LiqmYQZeG2OJxmtwTQI=;
> b=Yq2Nya/66Vu5w6nNpTUv8LEnsCGR+JlJ895K/cvR0mlClcb2DLPGqhvMmAhPRnVC6P
> 5lyLBb0BanEOEB5t67nNrVRDwmL/nXyneeJKirBxtqfYoX82wSUEyObyvO5lBx5WlZjd
> 7IFu2/h9klmSHROrvtKaxHRzYYf97RrRZ7R6kUT/MptavElCUHxFZYVt8v39v0QUxqH8
> MBekCo2B/5+W5SBtVF33Auv200I2Z82VjkUUpo4jXKJb6wedh1dfBUxH68MnoVoVRJcq
> CehSyCf+cG+5K5kWw96LsHynVXZEpos6blrNXcKzRev92YSyY59ZKV4R2rqBlgxN/CeI
> vyVw==
> X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
> d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686214051; x=1688806051;
> h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to
> :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc
> :subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
> bh=M478tZ0BJPqFdShribkt4DG9LiqmYQZeG2OJxmtwTQI=;
> b=IIdJ5BqHdko+u8iHJ25sRJlbsFEuTdUrBtxh2l6ZHZ1APaHEHOUIYEdUQk0/jb+fq8
> FBlIf7K/TzO9LyYIshf+7CTZ2HhxfopgnafeaiMeUyID2x+G1Fc3wvAvPSvF7dZKXYJz
> ebR+R0Prljz6lJHDAydvFYURpRfMT5E6Rnwp+CCofymPXlYmcWBgQwA+blAp50FZE4yw
> DMCkSYNzyPbSpA77j4sK3F3ptNJOAdlUzf3w0zlKDX4a146eq+uocseNLb5SftdHWL2z
> FVqlKkGRjuBws2ss1/Iqhhw1q8tPoIHB1yUicoLntg1ukKxFBLsbHIn5juBAcnz7fmQY
> xw6w==
> X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxt+ymlCMH+c9NbnO3d+FD0m+JQp5D2xU5rkCmmjrwYyh9vgl+6
> JeUTJJz5Eg0m9YrHXMK4n1CSOQ==
> X-Google-Smtp-Source:
> ACHHUZ7154zUvrdNtTgZVFuJ8WpQ3S+Vr8G9uLG4z30KZw1UZuEHkqXzo6u/4y2aW+LeH1v8GBnjxw==
> X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:7d85:b0:10d:d0cd:c1c7 with SMTP id
> v5-20020a056a207d8500b0010dd0cdc1c7mr7184475pzj.15.1686214050909;
> Thu, 08 Jun 2023 01:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: from localhost.localdomain ([61.213.176.13])
> by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
> 23-20020aa79157000000b0063b806b111csm614160pfi.169.2023.06.08.01.47.25
> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256);
> Thu, 08 Jun 2023 01:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Jiachen Zhang <[email protected]>
> To: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>, [email protected],
> [email protected]
> Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>, [email protected],
> Jiachen Zhang <[email protected]>
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] fuse: remove an unnecessary if statement
> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2023 16:46:09 +0800
> Message-Id: <[email protected]>
> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.35.1
> In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> References: <[email protected]>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Precedence: bulk
> List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>
> X-Mailing-List: [email protected]
>
> FUSE remote locking code paths never add any locking state to
> inode->i_flctx, so the locks_remove_posix() function called on
> file close will return without calling fuse_setlk().
>
> Therefore, as the if statement to be removed in this commit will
> always be false, remove it for clearness.
>
> Fixes: 7142125937e1 ("[PATCH] fuse: add POSIX file locking support")
> Signed-off-by: Jiachen Zhang <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/fuse/file.c | 4 ----
> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
> index 7fe9d405969e..57789215c666 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
> @@ -2619,10 +2619,6 @@ static int fuse_setlk(struct file *file, struct file_lock *fl, int flock)
> return -ENOLCK;
> }
>
> - /* Unlock on close is handled by the flush method */
> - if ((fl->fl_flags & FL_CLOSE_POSIX) == FL_CLOSE_POSIX)
> - return 0;
> -
> fuse_lk_fill(&args, file, fl, opcode, pid_nr, flock, &inarg);
> err = fuse_simple_request(fm, &args);
>