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, brauner@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/10] fscrypt: Drop d_revalidate for valid dentries during lookup
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 18:03:13 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o7caagcu.fsf@mailhost.krisman.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240214235904.GH1638@sol.localdomain> (Eric Biggers's message of "Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:59:04 -0800")
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:13:14PM -0500, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
>> Finally, we need to clean the dentry->flags even for unencrypted
>> dentries, so the ->d_lock might be acquired even for them. In order to
>
> might => must?
>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/fscrypt.h b/include/linux/fscrypt.h
>> index 47567a6a4f9d..d1f17b90c30f 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/fscrypt.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/fscrypt.h
>> @@ -951,10 +951,29 @@ static inline int fscrypt_prepare_rename(struct inode *old_dir,
>> static inline void fscrypt_prepare_dentry(struct dentry *dentry,
>> bool is_nokey_name)
>> {
>> + /*
>> + * This code tries to only take ->d_lock when necessary to write
>> + * to ->d_flags. We shouldn't be peeking on d_flags for
>> + * DCACHE_OP_REVALIDATE unlocked, but in the unlikely case
>> + * there is a race, the worst it can happen is that we fail to
>> + * unset DCACHE_OP_REVALIDATE and pay the cost of an extra
>> + * d_revalidate.
>> + */
>> if (is_nokey_name) {
>> spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
>> 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.
>> + */
>> + spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
>> + dentry->d_flags &= ~DCACHE_OP_REVALIDATE;
>> + spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
>> }
>> }
>
> Does this all get optimized out when !CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION?
>
> As-is, I don't think the d_revalidate part will be optimized out.
>
it seems to get optimized out:
This is ext4_lookup built with CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION=n
ffffffff814ca3e0 <ext4_lookup>:
ffffffff814ca3e0: e8 5b b5 c3 ff call ffffffff81105940 <__fentry__>
ffffffff814ca3e5: 41 54 push %r12
ffffffff814ca3e7: 55 push %rbp
ffffffff814ca3e8: 53 push %rbx
ffffffff814ca3e9: 48 83 ec 58 sub $0x58,%rsp
ffffffff814ca3ed: 8b 56 24 mov 0x24(%rsi),%edx
ffffffff814ca3f0: 65 48 8b 04 25 28 00 mov %gs:0x28,%rax
ffffffff814ca3f7: 00 00
ffffffff814ca3f9: 48 89 44 24 50 mov %rax,0x50(%rsp)
ffffffff814ca3fe: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
ffffffff814ca400: 48 c7 c0 dc ff ff ff mov $0xffffffffffffffdc,%rax
ffffffff814ca407: 81 fa ff 00 00 00 cmp $0xff,%edx
ffffffff814ca40d: 76 21 jbe ffffffff814ca430 <ext4_lookup+0x50>
ffffffff814ca40f: 48 8b 4c 24 50 mov 0x50(%rsp),%rcx
ffffffff814ca414: 65 48 33 0c 25 28 00 xor %gs:0x28,%rcx
ffffffff814ca41b: 00 00
ffffffff814ca41d: 0f 85 cd 01 00 00 jne ffffffff814ca5f0 <ext4_lookup+0x210> <- (__stack_chk_fail)
ffffffff814ca423: 48 83 c4 58 add $0x58,%rsp
ffffffff814ca427: 5b pop %rbx
ffffffff814ca428: 5d pop %rbp
ffffffff814ca429: 41 5c pop %r12
ffffffff814ca42b: e9 70 21 8b 00 jmp ffffffff81d7c5a0 <__x86_return_thunk>
ffffffff814ca430: 48 89 f3 mov %rsi,%rbx
ffffffff814ca433: 89 54 24 20 mov %edx,0x20(%rsp)
ffffffff814ca437: 48 8d 76 20 lea 0x20(%rsi),%rsi
ffffffff814ca43b: 48 8b 43 28 mov 0x28(%rbx),%rax
ffffffff814ca43f: 48 8d 54 24 10 lea 0x10(%rsp),%rdx
ffffffff814ca444: 48 89 fd mov %rdi,%rbp
ffffffff814ca447: 48 89 74 24 10 mov %rsi,0x10(%rsp)
ffffffff814ca44c: 48 89 44 24 18 mov %rax,0x18(%rsp)
ffffffff814ca451: e8 ca f0 ff ff call ffffffff814c9520 <ext4_fname_setup_ci_filename>
[..]
I had also confirmed previously that fscrypt_lookup_prepare and
fscrypt_prepare_dentry gets correctly inlined into
ext4_fname_prepare_lookup.
> You may need to create a !CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION stub explicitly.
But, in spite of gcc doing the right thing now, fscrypt_prepare_dentry
might grow in the future. So, if you don't mind, I will still add the
stub explicitly, as you suggested.
thanks,
--
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-20 23:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-13 2:13 [PATCH v6 00/10] Set casefold/fscrypt dentry operations through sb->s_d_op Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-02-13 2:13 ` [PATCH v6 01/10] ovl: Always reject mounting over case-insensitive directories Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-02-13 2:13 ` [PATCH v6 02/10] fscrypt: Factor out a helper to configure the lookup dentry Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-02-14 23:54 ` Eric Biggers
2024-02-13 2:13 ` [PATCH v6 03/10] fscrypt: Drop d_revalidate for valid dentries during lookup Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-02-14 23:59 ` Eric Biggers
2024-02-20 23:03 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi [this message]
2024-02-13 2:13 ` [PATCH v6 04/10] fscrypt: Drop d_revalidate once the key is added Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-02-15 0:16 ` Eric Biggers
2024-02-15 0:31 ` Eric Biggers
2024-02-20 0:48 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-02-13 2:13 ` [PATCH v6 05/10] libfs: Merge encrypted_ci_dentry_ops and ci_dentry_ops Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-02-13 2:13 ` [PATCH v6 06/10] libfs: Add helper to choose dentry operations at mount-time Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-02-13 2:13 ` [PATCH v6 07/10] ext4: Configure dentry operations at dentry-creation time Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-02-13 2:13 ` [PATCH v6 08/10] f2fs: " Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-02-13 2:13 ` [PATCH v6 09/10] ubifs: " Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-02-13 2:13 ` [PATCH v6 10/10] libfs: Drop generic_set_encrypted_ci_d_ops Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-02-15 0:24 ` [PATCH v6 00/10] Set casefold/fscrypt dentry operations through sb->s_d_op Eric Biggers
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=87o7caagcu.fsf@mailhost.krisman.be \
--to=krisman@suse.de \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--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).