On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:03:12PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 06:56:58PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> > 11.12.2012 19:35, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
> > >On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:20:36AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > >>On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 07:07:00PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> > >>>I don't really understand, how mountd's root can be wrong. I.e.
> > >>>its' always right as I see it. NFSd kthreads have to swap/use
> > >>>relative path/whatever to communicate with proper mountd.
> > >>>Or I'm missing something?
> > >>
> > >>Ugh, I see the problem: I thought svc_export_request was called at the
> > >>time mountd does the read, but instead its done at the time nfsd does
> > >>the upcall.
> > >>
> > >>I suspect that's wrong, and we really want this done in the context of
> > >>the mountd process when it does the read call. If d_path is called
> > >>there then we have no problem.
> > >
> > >Right, so I'd be happier if we could modify sunrpc_cache_pipe_upcall to
> > >skip calling cache_request and instead delay that until cache_read(). I
> > >think that should be possible.
> > >
> >
> > So, Bruce, what we going to do (or what you want me to do) with the rest of
> > NFSd changes?
> > I.e. how I should solve this d_path() problem?
> > I.e. I don't understand what did you mean by "I'd be happier if we could
> > modify sunrpc_cache_pipe_upcall to
> > skip calling cache_request and instead delay that until cache_read()".
> > Could you give me a hint?
>
> Definitely. So normally the way these upcalls happen are:
>
> 1. the kernel does a cache lookup, finds no matching item, and
> calls sunrpc_cache_pipe_upcall().
> 2. sunrpc_cache_pipe_upcall() formats the upcall: it allocates a
> struct cache_request crq and fills crq->buf with the upcall
> data by calling the cache's ->cache_request() method.
> 3. Then rpc.mountd realizes there's data available in
> /proc/net/rpc/nfsd.fh/content, so it does a read on that file.
> 4. cache_read copies the formatted upcall from crq->buf to
> to userspace.
>
> So all I'm suggesting is that instead of calling ->cache_request() at
> step 2, we do it at step 4.
>
> Then cache_request will be called from rpc.mountd's read. So we'll know
> which container rpc.mountd is in.
>
> Does that make sense?
The following is untested, ugly, and almost certainly insufficient and
wrong, but maybe it's a starting point:
--b.
diff --git a/net/sunrpc/cache.c b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
index 9f84703..f15e4c1 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/cache.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
@@ -744,6 +744,7 @@ struct cache_request {
char * buf;
int len;
int readers;
+ void (*cache_request)(struct cache_detail *, struct cache_head *, char
**, int *);
};
struct cache_reader {
struct cache_queue q;
@@ -785,10 +786,19 @@ static ssize_t cache_read(struct file *filp, char __user
*buf, size_t count,
spin_unlock(&queue_lock);
if (rp->offset == 0 && !test_bit(CACHE_PENDING, &rq->item->flags)) {
+ char *bp;
+ int len = PAGE_SIZE;
+
err = -EAGAIN;
spin_lock(&queue_lock);
list_move(&rp->q.list, &rq->q.list);
spin_unlock(&queue_lock);
+
+ bp = rq->buf;
+ rq->cache_request(cd, rq->item, &bp, &len);
+ if (rq->len < 0)
+ goto out;
+ rq->len = PAGE_SIZE - len;
} else {
if (rp->offset + count > rq->len)
count = rq->len - rp->offset;
@@ -1149,8 +1159,6 @@ int sunrpc_cache_pipe_upcall(struct cache_detail *detail,
struct cache_head *h,
char *buf;
struct cache_request *crq;
- char *bp;
- int len;
if (!cache_listeners_exist(detail)) {
warn_no_listener(detail);
@@ -1167,19 +1175,10 @@ int sunrpc_cache_pipe_upcall(struct cache_detail
*detail, struct cache_head *h,
return -EAGAIN;
}
- bp = buf; len = PAGE_SIZE;
-
- cache_request(detail, h, &bp, &len);
-
- if (len < 0) {
- kfree(buf);
- kfree(crq);
- return -EAGAIN;
- }
+ crq->cache_request = cache_request;
crq->q.reader = 0;
crq->item = cache_get(h);
crq->buf = buf;
- crq->len = PAGE_SIZE - len;
crq->readers = 0;
spin_lock(&queue_lock);
list_add_tail(&crq->q.list, &detail->queue);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
