Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 0/5] bpf path iterator

["NeilBrown" <neil@brown.name>]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2025, Song Liu wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Jul 9, 2025, at 3:24 PM, NeilBrown <neil@brown.name> wrote:
> [...]
> >> 
> >> How should the user handle -ECHILD without LOOKUP_RCU flag? Say the
> >> following code in landlocked:
> >> 
> >> /* Try RCU walk first */
> >> err = vfs_walk_ancestors(path, ll_cb, data, LOOKUP_RCU);
> >> 
> >> if (err == -ECHILD) {
> >> struct path walk_path = *path;
> >> 
> >> /* reset any data changed by the walk */
> >> reset_data(data);
> >> 
> >> /* now do ref-walk */
> >> err = vfs_walk_ancestors(&walk_path, ll_cb, data, 0);
> >> }
> >> 
> >> Or do you mean vfs_walk_ancestors will never return -ECHILD?
> >> Then we need vfs_walk_ancestors to call reset_data logic, right?
> > 
> > It isn't clear to me that vfs_walk_ancestors() needs to return anything.
> > All the communication happens through walk_cb()
> > 
> > walk_cb() is called with a path, the data, and a "may_sleep" flag.
> > If it needs to sleep but may_sleep is not set, it returns "-ECHILD"
> > which causes the walk to restart and use refcounts.
> > If it wants to stop, it returns 0.
> > If it wants to continue, it returns 1.
> > If it wants a reference to the path then it can use (new)
> > vfs_legitimize_path() which might fail.
> > If it wants a reference to the path and may_sleep is true, it can use
> > path_get() which won't fail.
> > 
> > When returning -ECHILD (either because of a need to sleep or because
> > vfs_legitimize_path() fails), walk_cb() would reset_data().
> 
> This might actually work. 
> 
> My only concern is with vfs_legitimize_path. It is probably safer if 
> we only allow taking references with may_sleep==true, so that path_get
> won’t fail. In this case, we will not need walk_cb() to call 
> vfs_legitimize_path. If the user want a reference, the walk_cb will 
> first return -ECHILD, and call path_get when may_sleep is true. 

What is your concern with vfs_legitimize_path() ??

I've since realised that always restarting in response to -ECHILD isn't
necessary and isn't how normal path-walk works.  Restarting might be
needed, but the first response to -ECHILD is to try legitimize_path().
If that succeeds, then it is safe to sleep.
So returning -ECHILD might just result in vfs_walk_ancestors() calling
legitimize_path() and then calling walk_cb() again.  Why not have
walk_cb() do the vfs_legitimize_path() call (which will almost always
succeed in practice).

NeilBrown


> 
> Does this make sense? Did I miss any cases? 
> 
> Thanks,
> Song
> 
>