Re: [NBD] Use per-device semaphore instead of BKL

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Herbert Xu wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 12:19:17PM -0500, Paul Clements wrote:

The dropping of the lock in nbd_do_it is actually critical to the way nbd functions. nbd_do_it runs for the lifetime of the nbd device, so if nbd_do_it were holding some lock (BKL or otherwise), we'd have big problems.

Why would you want to issue an ioctl from a different process while
nbd-client is still running?
nbd-client -d (disconnect) is the main reason -- this functionality 
would be broken if we didn't allow ioctls anymore
Allow ioctl's while nbd_do_it is in progress is a *serious* bug.  For a
Certain ioctls, yes. There's no harm in NBD_DISCONNECT, though.

start, if someone else clears the socket then nbd_read_stat will crash.
I agree, NBD_CLEAR_SOCK from another process while nbd_do_it is running 
would cause problems. But, if the user-level tools are coded properly, 
this is not an issue.
Perhaps your ioctl lock scheme, with an exemption for NBD_DISCONNECT 
would work?
--
Paul
-
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/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux