[Ocfs2-devel] [RFC] Should we revert commit "ocfs2: take inode lock in ocfs2_iop_set/get_acl()"? or other ideas?

[Eric Ren]

Hi Junxiao,

On 10/19/2016 02:57 PM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> I had ever implemented generic recursive locking support, please check the patch at https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-devel/2015-December/011408.html <https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-devel/2015-December/011408.html> , the issue that locking and unlocking in different processes was considered. But it was rejected by Mark as recursive locking is not allowed in ocfs2/kernel .
Yes, I can remember it. The different point is that I just want to have a function to check 
recursive locking
than supporting recursive locking;-)

Honestly, I cannot understand your patch thoroughly until now.  Back to that time, it's the 
complication of your patch
that concerns me. Besides, looks like the "PR+EX" + "non-block" request cannot be handled well?
>> The thrid one is to revert that problematic commit! It looks like get/set_acl()
>> are always been called by other vfs callback like ocfs2_permission(). I think
>> we can do this if it's true, right? Anyway, I'll try to work out if it's true;-)
> Not sure whether get/set_acl() will be called directly by vfs. Even not now, we can’t make sure that in the future. So revert it may be a little risky. But if refactor is complicated, then this maybe the only way we can do.
Agree. Let's investigate more into it;-)

Thanks,
Junxiao
>
> Thanks,
> Junxiao.
>> Hope for your input to solve this problem;-)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eric
>>
>