Re: [PATCH 5/6] eventfs: get rid of dentry pointers without refcounts

Steven Rostedt
2024-01-31T05:33:05Z

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:25:30 -0800
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > Does this work:
> >
> > d_invalidate(dentry);
>
> It does, but it's basically irrelevant with the d_revalidate approach.
>
> Basically, once you have d_revalidate(), the unhashing happens there,
> and it's just extra work and pointless to do it elsewhere.
>
> So if you look at the "clean up dentry ops and add revalidate
> function" patch, you'll see that it just does
>
> - simple_recursive_removal(dentry, NULL);
>
> and the thing is just history.

With even the last patch included, without the d_invalidate() I get errors
with simply doing:

# cd /sys/kernel/tracing
# mkdir instances/foo
# ls instances/foo/events
# rmdir instances/foo

As the rmdir calls tracefs_remove() that calls simple_recursive_removal()
that then walks into the "events" directory. Without that d_invalidate, it
walks beyond just the top directory and then splats on the dentries that
are cached.

>
> So really, that final patch is the one that fixes the whole eventfs
> mess for good (knock wood). But you can't do it first, because it
> basically depends on all the refcount fixes.

I'm running my full suite with the final patch included, plus some of the
updates I mentioned in replies to other patches, as well as including this
"d_invalidate()" as it doesn't pass without it.

>
> It might be possible to re-organize the patches so that the refcount
> changes go first, then the d_revalidate(), and then the rest. But I
> suspect they all really end up depending on each other some way,
> because the basic issue was that the whole "keep unrefcounted dentry
> pointers around" was just wrong. So it doesn't end up right until
> it's _all_ fixed, because every step of the way exposes some problem.
>
> At least that was my experience. Fix one thing, and it exposes the
> hack that another thing depended on.
>
> This is actually something that Al is a master at. You sometimes see
> him send one big complicated patch where he talks about all the
> problems in some area and it's one huge "fix up everything patch" that
> looks very scary.
>
> And then a week later he sends a series of 19 patches that all make
> sense and all look "obvious" and all make small progress.
>
> And magically they end up matching that big cleanup patch in the end.
> And you just *know* that it didn't start out as that beautiful logical
> series, because you saw the big messy patch first...

I'll take a look at breaking the patches up further, as I now have a much
better understanding of dentries then I did before this discussion.

-- Steve