From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33304 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726316AbfGASwP (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:52:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:52:07 -0400 From: Brian Foster Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: short circuit xfs_get_acl() if no acl is possible Message-ID: <20190701185207.GB45202@bfoster> References: <35128e32-d69b-316e-c8d6-8f109646390d@redhat.com> <20190508201033.GW5207@magnolia> <20190509130535.GB41691@bfoster> <20190626181206.GH5171@magnolia> <9146eab8-06e7-e85f-d624-aa03f4046540@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9146eab8-06e7-e85f-d624-aa03f4046540@sandeen.net> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Eric Sandeen Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , Eric Sandeen , linux-xfs , David Valin On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 01:16:27PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > On 6/26/19 1:12 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 09:05:39AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > >> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 01:10:33PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > >>> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 02:28:09PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >>>> If there are no attributes on the inode, don't go through the > >>>> cost of memory allocation and callling xfs_attr_get when we > >>>> already know we'll just get -ENOATTR. > >>>> > >>>> Reported-by: David Valin > >>>> Suggested-by: Dave Chinner > >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen > >>>> --- > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_acl.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_acl.c > >>>> index 8039e35147dd..b469b44e9e71 100644 > >>>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_acl.c > >>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_acl.c > >>>> @@ -132,6 +132,9 @@ xfs_get_acl(struct inode *inode, int type) > >>>> BUG(); > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> + if (!xfs_inode_hasattr(ip)) > >>>> + return NULL; > >>> > >>> This isn't going to cause problems if someone's adding an ACL to the > >>> inode at the same time, right? > >>> > >>> I'm assuming that's the case since we only would load inodes when > >>> setting up a vfs inode but before any userspace can get its sticky > >>> fingers all over the inode, but it sure would be nice to know that > >>> for sure. :) > >>> > >> > >> Hmm, that's a good question. At first I was thinking it wouldn't matter, > >> but then I remembered the fairly recent issue around writing back an > >> empty leaf buffer on format conversion a bit too early. That has me > >> wondering if that would be an issue here as well. For example, suppose a > >> non-empty local format attr fork is being converted to extent format due > >> to a concurrent (and unrelated) xattr set. That involves > >> xfs_attr_shortform_to_leaf() -> xfs_bmap_local_to_extents_empty(), which > >> looks like it creates a transient empty fork state. Might > >> xfs_inode_hasattr() catch that as a false negative here? If so, that > >> would certainly be a problem if the existing xattr was the ACL the > >> caller happens to be interested in. It might be prudent to surround this > >> check with ILOCK_SHARED... > > > > But xfs_inode_hasattr checks forkoff > 0, so as long as the > > It does do that ... > > int > xfs_inode_hasattr( > struct xfs_inode *ip) > { > if (!XFS_IFORK_Q(ip) || > > > > shortform to leaf conversion doesn't zero forkoff we'd be fine, I think. > > AFAICT it doesn't...? > > but there's that pesky || part : > > (ip->i_d.di_aformat == XFS_DINODE_FMT_EXTENTS && > ip->i_d.di_anextents == 0)) > return 0; > return 1; > } > > and I think it's the latter state Brian was concerned about? > Yep, pretty much. Brian > I can play with sandwiching it in a shared lock... > > -Eric >