Hi,
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:57 AM Alexander Aring aahringo@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:49 AM Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:40:28AM -0400, Alexander Aring wrote:
This patch introduces a new flag DLM_PLOCK_FL_NO_REPLY in case an dlm plock operation should not send a reply back. Currently this is kind of being handled in DLM_PLOCK_FL_CLOSE, but DLM_PLOCK_FL_CLOSE has more meanings that it will remove all waiters for a specific nodeid/owner values in by doing a unlock operation. In case of an error in dlm user space software e.g. dlm_controld we get an reply with an error back. This cannot be matched because there is no op to match in recv_list. We filter now on DLM_PLOCK_FL_NO_REPLY in case we had an error back as reply. In newer dlm_controld version it will never send a result back when DLM_PLOCK_FL_NO_REPLY is set. This filter is a workaround to handle older dlm_controld versions.
Fixes: 901025d2f319 ("dlm: make plock operation killable") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring aahringo@redhat.com
Why is adding a new uapi a stable patch?
because the user space is just to copy the flags back to the kernel. I thought it would work. :)
* Speaking of dlm_controld here, we don't know any other implementation which uses this UAPI. If there is another user space application using it and does a different behaviour then this issue is unfixable, as we don't know what behaviour we get there.
- Alex