From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Cc: brauner@kernel.org, jack@suse.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, clm@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: make sure to fail try_to_unlazy() and try_to_unlazy() for LOOKUP_CACHED
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 10:06:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251217100605.GT1712166@ZenIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGudoHE5SrcUbUU8AuMCE1F_+wEUfM4o_Bp9eiYjX0jtJPUUmA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 10:11:04AM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 10:07 AM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 09:47:04AM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > > One remaining weirdness is terminate_walk() walking the symlink stack
> > > after drop_links().
> >
> > What weirdness? If we are not in RCU mode, we need to drop symlink bodies
> > *and* drop symlink references?
>
> One would expect a routine named drop_links() would handle the
> entirety of clean up of symlinks.
>
> Seeing how it only handles some of it, it should be renamed to better
> indicate what it is doing, but that's a potential clean up for later.
Take a look at the callers. All 3 of them.
1) terminate_walk(): drop all symlink bodies, in non-RCU mode drop
all paths as well.
2) a couple in legitimize_links(): *always* called in RCU mode. That's
the whole point - trying to grab references to a bunch of dentries/mounts,
so that we could continue in non-RCU mode from that point on. What should
we do if we'd grabbed some of those references, but failed halfway through
the stack?
We *can't* do path_put() there - not under rcu_read_lock(). And we can't
delay dropping the link bodies past rcu_read_unlock().
Note that this state has
nd->depth link bodies in stack, all need to be droped before
rcu_read_unlock()
first K link references in stack that need to be dropped after
rcu_read_unlock()
nd->depth - K link references in stack that do _not_ need to
be dropped.
Solution: have link bodies dropped, callbacks cleared and nd->depth
reset to K. The caller of legitimate_links() immediately drops out
of RCU mode and we proceed to terminate_walk(), same as we would
on an error in non-RCU mode.
This case is on a slow path; we could microoptimize it, but result
would be really harder to understand.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-17 10:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-17 8:47 [PATCH v2] fs: make sure to fail try_to_unlazy() and try_to_unlazy() for LOOKUP_CACHED Mateusz Guzik
2025-12-17 9:08 ` Al Viro
2025-12-17 9:11 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-12-17 10:06 ` Al Viro [this message]
2025-12-17 10:13 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-12-17 10:27 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-12-17 10:48 ` Al Viro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20251217100605.GT1712166@ZenIV \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=clm@meta.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.