Re: [PATCH v7 13/14] xfs: use the new ->i_state accessors

Mateusz Guzik
2025-10-10T15:41:02Z

On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 4:41 PM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On Thu 09-10-25 09:59:27, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > Change generated with coccinelle and fixed up by hand as appropriate.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
>
> ...
>
> > @@ -2111,7 +2111,7 @@ xfs_rename_alloc_whiteout(
> > */
> > xfs_setup_iops(tmpfile);
> > xfs_finish_inode_setup(tmpfile);
> > - VFS_I(tmpfile)->i_state |= I_LINKABLE;
> > + inode_state_set_raw(VFS_I(tmpfile), I_LINKABLE);
> >
> > *wip = tmpfile;
> > return 0;
> > @@ -2330,7 +2330,7 @@ xfs_rename(
> > * flag from the inode so it doesn't accidentally get misused in
> > * future.
> > */
> > - VFS_I(du_wip.ip)->i_state &= ~I_LINKABLE;
> > + inode_state_clear_raw(VFS_I(du_wip.ip), I_LINKABLE);
> > }
> >
> > out_commit:
>
> These two accesses look fishy (not your fault but when we are doing this
> i_state exercise better make sure all the places are correct before
> papering over bugs with _raw function variant). How come they cannot race
> with other i_state modifications and thus corrupt i_state?
>

I asked about this here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/CAGudoHEi05JGkTQ9PbM20D98S9fv0hTqpWRd5fWjEwkExSiVSw@mail.gmail.com/

> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> > index caff0125faea..ad94fbf55014 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> > @@ -1420,7 +1420,7 @@ xfs_setup_inode(
> > bool is_meta = xfs_is_internal_inode(ip);
> >
> > inode->i_ino = ip->i_ino;
> > - inode->i_state |= I_NEW;
> > + inode_state_set_raw(inode, I_NEW);
> >
> > inode_sb_list_add(inode);
> > /* make the inode look hashed for the writeback code */
>
> Frankly, the XFS i_state handling is kind of messy and I suspect we should
> be getting i_state == 0 here. But we need to confirm with XFS guys. I'm
> poking into this because this is actually the only case where we need
> inode_state_set_raw() or inode_state_clear_raw() outside of core VFS and
> I'd like to get rid of these functions because IMHO they are actively
> dangerous to use.
>

I'm going to address this in the other e-mail.