Hi,

On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 2:07 PM Alexander Aring <aahri...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> This patch fixes the current handling of F_CANCELLK by not just doing a
> unlock as we need to try to cancel a lock at first. A unlock makes sense
> on a non-blocking lock request but if it's a blocking lock request we
> need to cancel the request until it's not granted yet. This patch is fixing
> this behaviour by first try to cancel a lock request and if it's failed
> it's unlocking the lock which seems to be granted.
>
> Note: currently the nfs locking handling was disabled by commit
> 40595cdc93ed ("nfs: block notification on fs with its own ->lock").
> However DLM was never being updated regarding to this change. Future
> patches will try to fix lockd lock requests for DLM. This patch is
> currently assuming the upstream DLM lockd handling is correct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahri...@redhat.com>
> ---
>  fs/dlm/plock.c            | 102 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  fs/gfs2/file.c            |   9 ++--
>  fs/ocfs2/stack_user.c     |  13 ++---
>  include/linux/dlm_plock.h |   2 +
>  4 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/dlm/plock.c b/fs/dlm/plock.c
> index a8ffa0760913..84510994b177 100644
> --- a/fs/dlm/plock.c
> +++ b/fs/dlm/plock.c
> @@ -42,6 +42,27 @@ static inline void set_version(struct dlm_plock_info *info)
>         info->version[2] = DLM_PLOCK_VERSION_PATCH;
>  }
>
> +static struct plock_op *plock_lookup_waiter(const struct dlm_plock_info 
> *info)
> +{
> +       struct plock_op *op = NULL, *iter;
> +
> +       list_for_each_entry(iter, &recv_list, list) {
> +               if (iter->info.fsid == info->fsid &&
> +                   iter->info.number == info->number &&
> +                   iter->info.owner == info->owner &&
> +                   iter->info.pid == info->pid &&
> +                   iter->info.start == info->start &&
> +                   iter->info.end == info->end &&
> +                   iter->info.ex == info->ex &&
> +                   iter->info.wait) {
> +                       op = iter;
> +                       break;
> +               }
> +       }
> +
> +       return op;
> +}
> +
>  static int check_version(struct dlm_plock_info *info)
>  {
>         if ((DLM_PLOCK_VERSION_MAJOR != info->version[0]) ||
> @@ -334,6 +355,73 @@ int dlm_posix_unlock(dlm_lockspace_t *lockspace, u64 
> number, struct file *file,
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dlm_posix_unlock);
>
> +/*
> + * NOTE: This implementation can only handle async lock requests as nfs
> + * do it. It cannot handle cancellation of a pending lock request sitting
> + * in wait_event(), but for now only nfs is the only user local kernel
> + * user.
> + */
> +int dlm_posix_cancel(dlm_lockspace_t *lockspace, u64 number, struct file 
> *file,
> +                    struct file_lock *fl)
> +{
> +       struct dlm_plock_info info;
> +       struct plock_op *op;
> +       struct dlm_ls *ls;
> +       int rv;
> +
> +       /* this only works for async request for now and nfs is the only
> +        * kernel user right now.
> +        */
> +       if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!fl->fl_lmops || !fl->fl_lmops->lm_grant))
> +               return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> +       ls = dlm_find_lockspace_local(lockspace);
> +       if (!ls)
> +               return -EINVAL;
> +

here is a:

memset(&info, 0, sizeof(info));

missing.

- Alex

Reply via email to