Linux filesystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] MNT_WRITE_HOLD mess
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2025 01:01:14 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250705000114.GU1880847@ZenIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250704202337.GT1880847@ZenIV>

On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 09:23:37PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 12:57:39PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> > Ugh. I don't hate the concept, but if we do this, I think it needs to
> > be better abstracted out.
> > 
> > And you may be right that things like list_for_each_entry() won't
> > care, but I would not be surprised there is list debugging code that
> > could care deeply. Or if anybody uses things like "list_is_first()",
> > it will work 99+_% of the time, but then break horribly if the low bit
> > of the prev pointer is set.
> > 
> > So we obviously use the low bits of pointers in many other situations,
> > but I do think that it needs to have some kind of clear abstraction
> > and type safety to make sure that people don't use the "normal" list
> > handling helpers silently by mistake when they won't actually work.
> 
> Point, but in this case I'd be tempted to turn the damn thing into
> pointer + unsigned long right in the struct mount, and deal with it
> explicitly.  And put a big note on it, along the lines of "we might want
> to abstract that someday".
> 
> Backporting would be easier that way, if nothing else...

FWIW, several observations around that thing:
	* mnt_get_write_access(), vfs_create_mount() and clone_mnt()
definitely do not need to touch the seqcount component of mount_lock.
read_seqlock_excl() is enough there.
	* AFAICS, the same goes for sb_prepare_remount_readonly(),
do_remount() and do_reconfigure_mnt() - no point bumping the seqcount
side of mount_lock there; only spinlock is needed.
	* failure exit in mount_setattr_prepare() needs only clearing the
bit; smp_wmb() is pointless there (especially done for each mount involved).
	* both vfs_create_mount() and clone_mnt() add mount to the tail
of ->s_mounts.  Is there any reason why that would be better than adding
to head?  I don't remember if that had been covered back in 2010/2011
discussion of per-mount r/o patchset; quick search on lore hasn't turned
up anything...  Miklos?

  reply	other threads:[~2025-07-05  0:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-07-04 19:44 [RFC] MNT_WRITE_HOLD mess Al Viro
2025-07-04 19:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-07-04 20:23   ` Al Viro
2025-07-05  0:01     ` Al Viro [this message]
2025-07-05  4:52       ` Miklos Szeredi
2025-07-05  5:57         ` Al Viro
2025-07-05  8:16           ` Al Viro
2025-07-05 18:53       ` Al Viro
2025-07-05 23:26         ` Al Viro
2025-07-07 10:26           ` Jan Kara
2025-07-06  1:26         ` [PATCH] fix a mount write count leak in ksmbd_vfs_kern_path_locked() (was Re: [RFC] MNT_WRITE_HOLD mess) Al Viro
2025-07-06  3:49           ` Namjae Jeon
2025-07-07  8:24 ` [RFC] MNT_WRITE_HOLD mess Christian Brauner

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=20250705000114.GU1880847@ZenIV \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox