linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@suse.de>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,  jaegeuk@kernel.org,  tytso@mit.edu,
	amir73il@gmail.com,  linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	 linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/12] fscrypt: Drop d_revalidate for valid dentries during lookup
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 15:35:40 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <871q9x2vwj.fsf@mailhost.krisman.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240131004724.GC2020@sol.localdomain> (Eric Biggers's message of "Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:47:24 -0800")

Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 05:43:22PM -0300, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
>> Unencrypted and encrypted-dentries where the key is available don't need
>> to be revalidated with regards to fscrypt, since they don't go stale
>> from under VFS and the key cannot be removed for the encrypted case
>> without evicting the dentry.  Mark them with d_set_always_valid, to
>
> "d_set_always_valid" doesn't appear in the diff itself.
>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/fscrypt.h b/include/linux/fscrypt.h
>> index 4aaf847955c0..a22997b9f35c 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/fscrypt.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/fscrypt.h
>> @@ -942,11 +942,22 @@ static inline int fscrypt_prepare_rename(struct inode *old_dir,
>>  static inline void fscrypt_prepare_lookup_dentry(struct dentry *dentry,
>>  						 bool is_nokey_name)
>>  {
>> -	if (is_nokey_name) {
>> -		spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
>> +	spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
>> +
>> +	if (is_nokey_name)
>>  		dentry->d_flags |= DCACHE_NOKEY_NAME;
>> -		spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
>> +	else if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_OP_REVALIDATE &&
>> +		 dentry->d_op->d_revalidate == fscrypt_d_revalidate) {
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Unencrypted dentries and encrypted dentries where the
>> +		 * key is available are always valid from fscrypt
>> +		 * perspective. Avoid the cost of calling
>> +		 * fscrypt_d_revalidate unnecessarily.
>> +		 */
>> +		dentry->d_flags &= ~DCACHE_OP_REVALIDATE;
>>  	}
>> +
>> +	spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
>
> This makes lookups in unencrypted directories start doing the
> spin_lock/spin_unlock pair.  Is that really necessary?
>
> These changes also make the inline function fscrypt_prepare_lookup() very long
> (when including the fscrypt_prepare_lookup_dentry() that's inlined into it).
> The rule that I'm trying to follow is that to the extent that the fscrypt helper
> functions are inlined, the inline part should be a fast path for unencrypted
> directories.  Encrypted directories should be handled out-of-line.
>
> So looking at the original fscrypt_prepare_lookup():
>
> 	static inline int fscrypt_prepare_lookup(struct inode *dir,
> 						 struct dentry *dentry,
> 						 struct fscrypt_name *fname)
> 	{
> 		if (IS_ENCRYPTED(dir))
> 			return __fscrypt_prepare_lookup(dir, dentry, fname);
>
> 		memset(fname, 0, sizeof(*fname));
> 		fname->usr_fname = &dentry->d_name;
> 		fname->disk_name.name = (unsigned char *)dentry->d_name.name;
> 		fname->disk_name.len = dentry->d_name.len;
> 		return 0;
> 	}
>
> If you could just add the DCACHE_OP_REVALIDATE clearing for dentries in
> unencrypted directories just before the "return 0;", hopefully without the
> spinlock, that would be good.  Yes, that does mean that
> __fscrypt_prepare_lookup() will have to handle it too, for the case of dentries
> in encrypted directories, but that seems okay.

ok, will do.  IIUC, we might be able to do without the d_lock
provided there is no store tearing.

But what was the reason you need the d_lock to set DCACHE_NOKEY_NAME
during lookup?  Is there a race with parallel lookup setting d_flag that
I couldn't find? Or is it another reason?


-- 
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi

  reply	other threads:[~2024-01-31 18:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-01-29 20:43 [PATCH v5 00/12] Set casefold/fscrypt dentry operations through sb->s_d_op Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-01-29 20:43 ` [PATCH v5 01/12] ovl: Reject mounting over case-insensitive directories Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-01-31  0:22   ` Eric Biggers
2024-01-31  0:31     ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-01-29 20:43 ` [PATCH v5 02/12] fscrypt: Factor out a helper to configure the lookup dentry Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-01-31  0:29   ` Eric Biggers
2024-01-29 20:43 ` [PATCH v5 03/12] fscrypt: Call fscrypt_prepare_lookup_dentry on unencrypted dentries Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-01-29 20:43 ` [PATCH v5 04/12] fscrypt: Drop d_revalidate for valid dentries during lookup Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-01-31  0:47   ` Eric Biggers
2024-01-31 18:35     ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi [this message]
2024-02-01  3:24       ` Eric Biggers
2024-02-02 14:50         ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-02-09 14:03           ` Christian Brauner
2024-02-09 14:46             ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-01-29 20:43 ` [PATCH v5 05/12] fscrypt: Drop d_revalidate once the key is added Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-01-29 20:43 ` [PATCH v5 06/12] fscrypt: Ignore plaintext dentries during d_move Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-01-31  0:55   ` Eric Biggers
2024-01-29 20:43 ` [PATCH v5 07/12] libfs: Merge encrypted_ci_dentry_ops and ci_dentry_ops Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-01-31  1:00   ` Eric Biggers
2024-01-29 20:43 ` [PATCH v5 08/12] libfs: Add helper to choose dentry operations at mount-time Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-01-29 20:43 ` [PATCH v5 09/12] ext4: Configure dentry operations at dentry-creation time Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-02-02 15:56   ` Theodore Ts'o
2024-01-29 20:43 ` [PATCH v5 10/12] f2fs: " Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-01-29 20:43 ` [PATCH v5 11/12] ubifs: " Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-01-29 20:43 ` [PATCH v5 12/12] libfs: Drop generic_set_encrypted_ci_d_ops Gabriel Krisman Bertazi

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=871q9x2vwj.fsf@mailhost.krisman.be \
    --to=krisman@suse.de \
    --cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
    --cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
    --cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).