Message-ID: <4AB8FE25.90806@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 01:41:09 +0900
From: Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, t-sato@yk.jp.nec.com,
       m-hamaguchi@ys.jp.nec.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Do not allow umounting of frozen filesystems
References: <4A94C151.8020900@oss.ntt.co.jp> <20090826173839.GA20175@lst.de> <4A965BD1.205@oss.ntt.co.jp> <4A9692CF.80508@oss.ntt.co.jp> <20090922110737.GL5858@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20090922110737.GL5858@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1949
Lines: 54

Al Viro さんは書きました:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:06:07PM +0900, Fernando Luis V?zquez Cao wrote:
>   
>> Instead of making umount users wait until the filesystem is
>> unfreezed return EBUSY, which is very convenient in HA
>> configurations.
>>
>> This could have been implemented at a lower level but it would
>> require considerable plumbing in functions such as release_mounts
>> which do not return errors.
>>     
>
>   
>> +	if (sb->s_bdev != NULL) {
>> +		mutex_lock(&sb->s_bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex);
>> +		if (sb->s_frozen != SB_UNFROZEN) {
>> +			mutex_unlock(&sb->s_bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex);
>> +			return -EBUSY;
>> +		}
>> +	}
>>     
>
> NAK.  First of all, it _partially_ breaks umount -l for no good reason.
> If the first fs on the mountpoint is frozen, we fail; if it's deeper
> we succeed just fine (and delay actual fs shutdown until the thaw).
>
> As far as I can see, the real problem is that fsthaw ioctl has braindead
> API; it takes some opened file on fs in question.  Why not do a bdev
> ioctl instead?  Then we could let umount go ahead just fine, leaving
> fs frozen (and not shut down until it thaws).  And whoever does thaw
> (via bdev ioctl) will automatically trigger the actual fs shutdown.
> Just with Christoph's pair of patches...
>   

I basically agree with you. The current API creates a lot of locking 
issues that could be tackled
more cleanly with the bdev ioctls you suggest.

> IOW, I'd rather add two new ioctls (check if frozen/thaw), both by
> bdev.  On top of the first two patches in this set.
>   

I am happy to see you would welcome a check ioctl.

If there is consensus on the bdev ioctl approach I could send patches.

Thanks,

Fernando
--
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/