Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Feedback-ID: i21f147d5:Fastmail
Date:   Mon, 14 Aug 2023 08:00:22 -0600
From:   Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc:     =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrg?= Billeter <j@bitron.ch>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        regressions@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] fuse: execve() fails with ETXTBSY due to async
 fuse_flush
Message-ID: <ZNozdrtKgTeTaMpX@tycho.pizza>
References: <4f66cded234462964899f2a661750d6798a57ec0.camel@bitron.ch>
 <CAJfpeguG4f4S-pq+_EXHxfB63mbof-VnaOy-7a-7seWLMj_xyQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAJfpeguG4f4S-pq+_EXHxfB63mbof-VnaOy-7a-7seWLMj_xyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 01:02:35PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 at 08:03, J?rg Billeter <j@bitron.ch> wrote:
> >
> > Since v6.3-rc1 commit 5a8bee63b1 ("fuse: in fuse_flush only wait if
> > someone wants the return code") `fput()` is called asynchronously if a
> > file is closed as part of a process exiting, i.e., if there was no
> > explicit `close()` before exit.
> >
> > If the file was open for writing, also `put_write_access()` is called
> > asynchronously as part of the async `fput()`.
> >
> > If that newly written file is an executable, attempting to `execve()`
> > the new file can fail with `ETXTBSY` if it's called after the writer
> > process exited but before the async `fput()` has run.
> 
> Thanks for the report.
> 
> At this point, I think it would be best to revert the original patch,
> since only v6.4 has it.

I agree.

> The original fix was already a workaround, and I don't see a clear
> path forward in this direction.  We need to see if there's better
> direction.
> 
> Ideas?

It seems like we really do need to wait here. I guess that means we
need some kind of exit-proof wait?

Tycho