To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no
Cc: phil@fifi.org, theonetruekenny@yahoo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       nfs@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [NFS] Re: [NFS client] NFS locks not released on abnormal process
 termination
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:50:56 +0100 (CET)"
	<35311.68.42.103.198.1073580656.squirrel@webmail.uio.no>
References: <35311.68.42.103.198.1073580656.squirrel@webmail.uio.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:56:26 +0900
Message-Id: <1073616986.525187.4709.nullmailer@yamt.dyndns.org>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@valinux.co.jp>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 915
Lines: 28

hi,

> > i think it's problematic because you can't assume the lock was
> > granted on the server and the signaled process might not exit
> > immediately.
> 
> The point is that it is *worse* to assume the lock was not granted,
> since then it will never get cleared on the server.

yes.

> The RPC layer blocks all signals except SIGKILL, so the signalled
> process has no choice but to exit immediately if something gets
> through.

we're talking about interruptible mounts, aren't we?

are you referring to rpc_clnt_sigmask() ?
i think it isn't safe to assume sa_handler isn't changed during
blocking for lock.  consider CLONE_SIGHAND, for example.

YAMAMOTO Takashi

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/