From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Brauner Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] open: add close_range() Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 16:14:48 +0200 Message-ID: <20190523141447.34s3kc3fuwmoeq7n@brauner.io> References: <20190522155259.11174-1-christian@brauner.io> <20190522165737.GC4915@redhat.com> <20190523115118.pmscbd6kaqy37dym@brauner.io> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190523115118.pmscbd6kaqy37dym@brauner.io> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, fweimer@redhat.com, jannh@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de, arnd@arndb.de, shuah@kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com, tkjos@android.com, ldv@altlinux.org, miklos@szeredi.hu, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 01:51:18PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 06:57:37PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 05/22, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > > > +static struct file *pick_file(struct files_struct *files, unsigned fd) > > > { > > > - struct file *file; > > > + struct file *file = NULL; > > > struct fdtable *fdt; > > > > > > spin_lock(&files->file_lock); > > > @@ -632,15 +629,65 @@ int __close_fd(struct files_struct *files, unsigned fd) > > > goto out_unlock; > > > rcu_assign_pointer(fdt->fd[fd], NULL); > > > __put_unused_fd(files, fd); > > > - spin_unlock(&files->file_lock); > > > - return filp_close(file, files); > > > > > > out_unlock: > > > spin_unlock(&files->file_lock); > > > - return -EBADF; > > > + return file; > > > > ... > > > > > +int __close_range(struct files_struct *files, unsigned fd, unsigned max_fd) > > > +{ > > > + unsigned int cur_max; > > > + > > > + if (fd > max_fd) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + > > > + rcu_read_lock(); > > > + cur_max = files_fdtable(files)->max_fds; > > > + rcu_read_unlock(); > > > + > > > + /* cap to last valid index into fdtable */ > > > + if (max_fd >= cur_max) > > > + max_fd = cur_max - 1; > > > + > > > + while (fd <= max_fd) { > > > + struct file *file; > > > + > > > + file = pick_file(files, fd++); > > > > Well, how about something like > > > > static unsigned int find_next_opened_fd(struct fdtable *fdt, unsigned start) > > { > > unsigned int maxfd = fdt->max_fds; > > unsigned int maxbit = maxfd / BITS_PER_LONG; > > unsigned int bitbit = start / BITS_PER_LONG; > > > > bitbit = find_next_bit(fdt->full_fds_bits, maxbit, bitbit) * BITS_PER_LONG; > > if (bitbit > maxfd) > > return maxfd; > > if (bitbit > start) > > start = bitbit; > > return find_next_bit(fdt->open_fds, maxfd, start); > > } > > > > > unsigned close_next_fd(struct files_struct *files, unsigned start, unsigned maxfd) > > { > > unsigned fd; > > struct file *file; > > struct fdtable *fdt; > > > > spin_lock(&files->file_lock); > > fdt = files_fdtable(files); > > fd = find_next_opened_fd(fdt, start); > > if (fd >= fdt->max_fds || fd > maxfd) { > > fd = -1; > > goto out; > > } > > > > file = fdt->fd[fd]; > > rcu_assign_pointer(fdt->fd[fd], NULL); > > __put_unused_fd(files, fd); > > out: > > spin_unlock(&files->file_lock); > > > > if (fd == -1u) > > return fd; > > > > filp_close(file, files); > > return fd + 1; > > } > > Thanks, Oleg! > > I kept it dumb and was about to reply that your solution introduces more > code when it seemed we wanted to keep this very simple for now. > But then I saw that find_next_opened_fd() already exists as > find_next_fd(). So it's actually not bad compared to what I sent in v1. > So - with some small tweaks (need to test it and all now) - how do we > feel about?: That's obviously not correct atm but I'll send out a tweaked version in a bit. Christian From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it1-f194.google.com ([209.85.166.194]:54200 "EHLO mail-it1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730885AbfEWOPA (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 May 2019 10:15:00 -0400 Received: by mail-it1-f194.google.com with SMTP id m141so9926715ita.3 for ; Thu, 23 May 2019 07:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 16:14:48 +0200 From: Christian Brauner Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] open: add close_range() Message-ID: <20190523141447.34s3kc3fuwmoeq7n@brauner.io> References: <20190522155259.11174-1-christian@brauner.io> <20190522165737.GC4915@redhat.com> <20190523115118.pmscbd6kaqy37dym@brauner.io> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190523115118.pmscbd6kaqy37dym@brauner.io> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, fweimer@redhat.com, jannh@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de, arnd@arndb.de, shuah@kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com, tkjos@android.com, ldv@altlinux.org, miklos@szeredi.hu, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org Message-ID: <20190523141448.veCV-FDWnvBRQN3E4ZPnQCqZ8sRZvuui2IvGn00G_Qk@z> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 01:51:18PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 06:57:37PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 05/22, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > > > +static struct file *pick_file(struct files_struct *files, unsigned fd) > > > { > > > - struct file *file; > > > + struct file *file = NULL; > > > struct fdtable *fdt; > > > > > > spin_lock(&files->file_lock); > > > @@ -632,15 +629,65 @@ int __close_fd(struct files_struct *files, unsigned fd) > > > goto out_unlock; > > > rcu_assign_pointer(fdt->fd[fd], NULL); > > > __put_unused_fd(files, fd); > > > - spin_unlock(&files->file_lock); > > > - return filp_close(file, files); > > > > > > out_unlock: > > > spin_unlock(&files->file_lock); > > > - return -EBADF; > > > + return file; > > > > ... > > > > > +int __close_range(struct files_struct *files, unsigned fd, unsigned max_fd) > > > +{ > > > + unsigned int cur_max; > > > + > > > + if (fd > max_fd) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + > > > + rcu_read_lock(); > > > + cur_max = files_fdtable(files)->max_fds; > > > + rcu_read_unlock(); > > > + > > > + /* cap to last valid index into fdtable */ > > > + if (max_fd >= cur_max) > > > + max_fd = cur_max - 1; > > > + > > > + while (fd <= max_fd) { > > > + struct file *file; > > > + > > > + file = pick_file(files, fd++); > > > > Well, how about something like > > > > static unsigned int find_next_opened_fd(struct fdtable *fdt, unsigned start) > > { > > unsigned int maxfd = fdt->max_fds; > > unsigned int maxbit = maxfd / BITS_PER_LONG; > > unsigned int bitbit = start / BITS_PER_LONG; > > > > bitbit = find_next_bit(fdt->full_fds_bits, maxbit, bitbit) * BITS_PER_LONG; > > if (bitbit > maxfd) > > return maxfd; > > if (bitbit > start) > > start = bitbit; > > return find_next_bit(fdt->open_fds, maxfd, start); > > } > > > > > unsigned close_next_fd(struct files_struct *files, unsigned start, unsigned maxfd) > > { > > unsigned fd; > > struct file *file; > > struct fdtable *fdt; > > > > spin_lock(&files->file_lock); > > fdt = files_fdtable(files); > > fd = find_next_opened_fd(fdt, start); > > if (fd >= fdt->max_fds || fd > maxfd) { > > fd = -1; > > goto out; > > } > > > > file = fdt->fd[fd]; > > rcu_assign_pointer(fdt->fd[fd], NULL); > > __put_unused_fd(files, fd); > > out: > > spin_unlock(&files->file_lock); > > > > if (fd == -1u) > > return fd; > > > > filp_close(file, files); > > return fd + 1; > > } > > Thanks, Oleg! > > I kept it dumb and was about to reply that your solution introduces more > code when it seemed we wanted to keep this very simple for now. > But then I saw that find_next_opened_fd() already exists as > find_next_fd(). So it's actually not bad compared to what I sent in v1. > So - with some small tweaks (need to test it and all now) - how do we > feel about?: That's obviously not correct atm but I'll send out a tweaked version in a bit. Christian