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> <CAOQ4uxjV2FahWEtESJJRwz0kkBZxkKosCnURzj2HtuKNwhscng@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190214205100.GB9216@fieldses.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190214205100.GB9216@fieldses.org>
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:31:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxhORdbODd01xrm6frbBUU1-U=5Rh86ZU63CrybpdyCL+A@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 Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:51 PM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:31:07PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > 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 (?)..
>
> Looks like the original patch was d984ea604943bb "fs: move i_readcount".
> I did some googling around and looked at the discussion summarized by
> https://lwn.net/Articles/410895/ but can't find useful discussion of
> i_readcount impact.
>
> Looks like CONFIG_IMA is on in Fedora and RHEL, for what it's worth.
>
> Maybe something like this?
>
> --b.
>
> commit 02cfda99ed8c
> Author: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
> Date:   Thu Feb 14 15:02:02 2019 -0500
>
>     locks: use i_readcount to detect lease conflicts
>
>     The lease code currently uses the inode and dentry refcounts to detect
>     whether someone has a file open for read.  This seems fragile.  Use
>     i_readcount instead.
>
>     Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
>
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index ff6af2c32601..299abad65545 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -1769,8 +1769,7 @@ check_conflicting_open(const struct dentry *dentry, const long arg, int flags)
>         if ((arg == F_RDLCK) && inode_is_open_for_write(inode))
>                 return -EAGAIN;
>
> -       if ((arg == F_WRLCK) && ((d_count(dentry) > 1) ||
> -           (atomic_read(&inode->i_count) > 1)))
> +       if ((arg == F_WRLCK) && (atomic_read(&inode->i_readcount) > 1))
>                 ret = -EAGAIN;

Alas, i_readcount is not the count of file opens for read, it is the count
of file opens O_RDONLY, so this is incorrect wrt conflict with other writers.

I guess since there is a full smp_mb() before this check, then you
can check (i_readcount + i_writecount) > 1 || (i_writecount < 0)

You can also check if caller itself is O_RDONLY to know if self
count is expect to be in i_readcount or i_writecount, but not sure
it is worth the trouble.

Thanks,
Amir.