DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=PSFnByfnFOzzn972BnSSTNUC0SjFhH+Df/zDCGttlKhm1cKKlrTdZ0WpCpq1Oqzysw
         HYODemwKxHPRZ1Qv1Dmio2JO6RbCpEvQbnzoB9V6AX68PtjJ0MsfIQaxl6L3KeXARPRk
         VXmgtESIzlMadntBJ9yivyILBbTIXIfOAEJnk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m1ws7vyvoz.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
References: <m1oct739xu.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
	 <1243893048-17031-4-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com>
	 <84144f020906012216n715a04d0ha492abc12175816@mail.gmail.com>
	 <m1ws7vyvoz.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:08:14 +0300
Message-ID: <84144f020906020008w54b1c628hc6e41dcddd208f5f@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/23] vfs: Introduce infrastructure for revoking a file
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>,
       Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
       Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
       "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@aristanetworks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2135
Lines: 60

Hi Eric,

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> writes:
>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Eric W. Biederman
>> <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_FILE_HOTPLUG
>>> +
>>> +static bool file_in_use(struct file *file)
>>> +{
>>> + ? ? ? struct task_struct *leader, *task;
>>> + ? ? ? bool in_use = false;
>>> + ? ? ? int i;
>>> +
>>> + ? ? ? rcu_read_lock();
>>> + ? ? ? do_each_thread(leader, task) {
>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < MAX_FILE_HOTPLUG_LOCK_DEPTH; i++) {
>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (task->file_hotplug_lock[i] == file) {
>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in_use = true;
>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? goto found;
>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? }
>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? }
>>> + ? ? ? } while_each_thread(leader, task);
>>> +found:
>>> + ? ? ? rcu_read_unlock();
>>> + ? ? ? return in_use;
>>> +}
>>
>> This seems rather heavy-weight. If we're going to use this
>> infrastructure for forced unmount, I think this will be a problem.
>
>> Can't we two this in two stages: (1) mark a bit that forces
>> file_hotplug_read_trylock to always fail and (2) block until the last
>> remaining in-kernel file_hotplug_read_unlock() has executed?
>
> Yes there is room for more optimization in the slow path.
> I haven't noticed being a problem yet so I figured I would start
> with stupid and simple.

Yup, just wanted to point it out.

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> I can easily see two passes. ?The first setting the flag an calling
> f_op->dead. ?The second some kind of consolidate walk through the task
> list, allowing checking on multiple files at once.
>
> I'm not ready to consider anything that will add cost to the fast
> path in the file descriptors though.

Makes sense.

                        Pekka
--
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/