Re: [PATCH 03/39] struct fd: representation change

[Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 01:15:49AM -0400, viro@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> 
> 	The absolute majority of instances comes from fdget() and its
> relatives; the underlying primitives actually return a struct file
> reference and a couple of flags encoded into an unsigned long - the lower
> two bits of file address are always zero, so we can stash the flags
> into those.  On the way out we use __to_fd() to unpack that unsigned
> long into struct fd.
> 
> 	Let's use that representation for struct fd itself - make it
> a structure with a single unsigned long member (.word), with the value
> equal either to (unsigned long)p | flags, p being an address of some
> struct file instance, or to 0 for an empty fd.
> 
> 	Note that we never used a struct fd instance with NULL ->file
> and non-zero ->flags; the emptiness had been checked as (!f.file) and
> we expected e.g. fdput(empty) to be a no-op.  With new representation
> we can use (!f.word) for emptiness check; that is enough for compiler
> to figure out that (f.word & FDPUT_FPUT) will be false and that fdput(f)
> will be a no-op in such case.
> 
> 	For now the new predicate (fd_empty(f)) has no users; all the
> existing checks have form (!fd_file(f)).  We will convert to fd_empty()
> use later; here we only define it (and tell the compiler that it's
> unlikely to return true).
> 
> 	This commit only deals with representation change; there will
> be followups.

I'm still trawling through all of this code and trying to grok it, but one thing
I kept wondering was wtf would we do this ->word trick in the first place?  It
seemed needlessly complicated and I don't love having structs with inprecise
members.

But then buried deep in your cover letter you have this

"""
It's not that hard to deal with - the real primitives behind fdget()
et.al. are returning an unsigned long value, unpacked by (inlined)
__to_fd() into the current struct file * + int.  Linus suggested that
keeping that unsigned long around with the extractions done by inlined
accessors should generate a sane code and that turns out to be the case.
Turning struct fd into a struct-wrapped unsinged long, with
	fd_empty(f) => unlikely(f.word == 0)
	fd_file(f) => (struct file *)(f.word & ~3)
	fdput(f) => if (f.word & 1) fput(fd_file(f))
ends up with compiler doing the right thing.  The cost is the patch
footprint, of course - we need to switch f.file to fd_file(f) all over
the tree, and it's not doable with simple search and replace; there are
false positives, etc.  Might become a PITA at merge time; however,
actual update of that from 6.10-rc1 to 6.11-rc1 had brought surprisingly
few conflicts.
"""

Which makes a whole lot of sense.  The member name doesn't matter much since
we're now using helpers everywhere, but for an idiot like me having something
like this

struct fd {
	unsigned long __file_ptr;
};

would make it so that you don't have random people deciding they can access
fd->file, and it helps make it more clear what exactly the point of this thing
is.

That being said I think renaming it really isn't the important part, I think
including something like the bit you wrote above in the commit message would
help when somebody is trying to figure out why this more obtuse strategy is used
rather than just having struct file *__file with the low bit masking stuff
tacked on the side.

I'm still working through all the patches, but in general the doc made sense,
and the patches thusfar are easy enough to follow.  Thanks,

Josef