Re: [NFS] Re: [NFS client] NFS locks not released on abnormal processtermination

[YAMAMOTO Takashi]

hi,

> > i think it's problematic because you can't assume the lock was
> > granted on the server and the signaled process might not exit
> > immediately.
> 
> The point is that it is *worse* to assume the lock was not granted,
> since then it will never get cleared on the server.

yes.

> The RPC layer blocks all signals except SIGKILL, so the signalled
> process has no choice but to exit immediately if something gets
> through.

we're talking about interruptible mounts, aren't we?

are you referring to rpc_clnt_sigmask() ?
i think it isn't safe to assume sa_handler isn't changed during
blocking for lock.  consider CLONE_SIGHAND, for example.

YAMAMOTO Takashi

-
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/