MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOQ4uxjQdLrZXkpP30Pq_=Cckcb=mADrEwQUXmsG92r-gn2y5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <379106947f859bdf5db4c6f9c4ab8c44f7423c08.camel@kernel.org>
 <CAOQ4uxgewN=j3ju5MSowEvwhK1HqKG3n1hBRUQTi1W5asaO1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190208155052.GB20573@fieldses.org> <CAOQ4uxg9NGPRpMZt0KgH9HUKMRpn0dFta7EnP1WioRb917n4+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190208201649.GA23657@fieldses.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190208201649.GA23657@fieldses.org>
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Feb 2019 22:31:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxjV2FahWEtESJJRwz0kkBZxkKosCnURzj2HtuKNwhscng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Better interop for NFS/SMB file share mode/reservation
To:     "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, Volker.Lendecke@sernet.de,
        samba-technical@lists.samba.org,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pavel Shilovsky <piastryyy@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:17 PM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:02:43PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 5:51 PM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:45:46PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > > - check_conflicting_open() is changed to use inode_is_open_for_read()
> > > >   instead of checking d_count and i_count.
> > >
> > > Independently of the rest, I'd love to do away with those
> > > d_count/i_count checks.  What's inode_is_open_for_read()?
> > >
> >
> > It would look maybe something like this:
> >
> > static inline bool file_is_open_for_read(const struct inode *file)
> > {
> >         struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
> >         int countself = (file->f_mode & (FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE)) ==
> > FMODE_READ) ? 1 : 0;
> >
> >         return atomic_read(&inode->i_readcount) > countself;
> > }
> >
> > And it would allow for acquiring F_WRLCK lease if other
> > instances of inode are open O_PATH.
> > A slight change of semantics that seems harmless(?)
> > and will allow some flexibility.
>
> How did I not know about i_readcount?  (Looking)  I guess it would mean
> adding some dependence on CONFIG_IMA, hm.
>

Yes, or we remove ifdef CONFIG_IMA from i_readcount.
I am not sure if the concern was size of struct inode
(shouldn't increase on 64bit arch) or the accounting on
open/close. The impact doesn't look significant (?)..

Thanks,
Amir.