Re: [PATCH] mm: prevent concurrent unmap_mapping_range() on the sameinode

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 01:30:58PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxx>
> 
> Running a fuse filesystem with multiple open()'s in parallel can
> trigger a "kernel BUG at mm/truncate.c:475"
> 
> The reason is, unmap_mapping_range() is not prepared for more than
> one concurrent invocation per inode.  For example:
> 
>   thread1: going through a big range, stops in the middle of a vma and
>      stores the restart address in vm_truncate_count.
> 
>   thread2: comes in with a small (e.g. single page) unmap request on
>      the same vma, somewhere before restart_address, finds that the
>      vma was already unmapped up to the restart address and happily
>      returns without doing anything.
> 
> Another scenario would be two big unmap requests, both having to
> restart the unmapping and each one setting vm_truncate_count to its
> own value.  This could go on forever without any of them being able to
> finish.
> 
> Truncate and hole punching already serialize with i_mutex.  Other
> callers of unmap_mapping_range() do not, and it's difficult to get
> i_mutex protection for all callers.  In particular ->d_revalidate(),
> which calls invalidate_inode_pages2_range() in fuse, may be called
> with or without i_mutex.


Which I think is mostly a fuse problem.  I really hate bloating the
generic inode (into which the address_space is embedded) with another
mutex for deficits in rather special case filesystems. 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/