[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RFC 4/4] {RFC} kmod.c: Add new call_usermodehelper_timeout()API

Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> That's fine. I will fail totally gracefully, and nothing will happen. I like this
> example if the system is under heavy load and there is no memory and the
> iscsi auto-login takes more then 15 second (Settable by module param) then I'd
> rather fail the login and revert to plain NFS-MDS IO, instead of the direct osd-target
> IO. Believe me.

So, race with timeout causes no inconsistency to the kernel.
Then, it will be no problem to have timeout-able version.

> >> I don't want any chance of D stating IO operations.
> >> (My code is in the IO path, either fsync or write-back. There is not
> >>  always a killable target)
> > 
> > Then, isn't UMH_NO_WAIT better than UMH_WAIT_PROC?
> > 
> No I need to wait for the application to finish the iscsi login before
> I can continue IO to the target. Otherwise what's the point.

Your code which launches usermodehelper is in the I/O path, isn't it?
Then, don't you need to use GFP_NOFS rather than GFP_KERNEL?

I'm not familiar with GFP_* flags usage. Can somebody clarify when we need to
use GFP_NOFS rather than GFP_KERNEL by enumerating the name of function (e.g.
xxxfs_writepage()) and/or the name of locks (e.g. xxx_mutex)? I've asked this
in the past http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg30248.html but
explanation with actual function/variable names is easier to understand.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

Powered by Linux