lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 08:25:25 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org> To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> Cc: Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>, "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, "ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org" <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>, Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>, "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>, "linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>, Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] mm: Add functions to lock invalidate_lock for two mappings On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 03:45:18PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 26-05-21 12:11:43, Damien Le Moal wrote: > > On 2021/05/26 19:07, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Tue 25-05-21 13:48:05, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > >> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 03:50:41PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > >>> Some operations such as reflinking blocks among files will need to lock > > >>> invalidate_lock for two mappings. Add helper functions to do that. > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> > > >>> --- > > >>> include/linux/fs.h | 6 ++++++ > > >>> mm/filemap.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >>> 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+) > > >>> > > >>> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h > > >>> index 897238d9f1e0..e6f7447505f5 100644 > > >>> --- a/include/linux/fs.h > > >>> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h > > >>> @@ -822,6 +822,12 @@ static inline void inode_lock_shared_nested(struct inode *inode, unsigned subcla > > >>> void lock_two_nondirectories(struct inode *, struct inode*); > > >>> void unlock_two_nondirectories(struct inode *, struct inode*); > > >>> > > >>> +void filemap_invalidate_down_write_two(struct address_space *mapping1, > > >>> + struct address_space *mapping2); > > >>> +void filemap_invalidate_up_write_two(struct address_space *mapping1, > > >> > > >> TBH I find myself wishing that the invalidate_lock used the same > > >> lock/unlock style wrappers that we use for i_rwsem. > > >> > > >> filemap_invalidate_lock(inode1->mapping); > > >> filemap_invalidate_lock_two(inode1->i_mapping, inode2->i_mapping); > > > > > > OK, and filemap_invalidate_lock_shared() for down_read()? I guess that > > > works for me. > > > > What about filemap_invalidate_lock_read() and filemap_invalidate_lock_write() ? > > That reminds the down_read()/down_write() without the slightly confusing down/up. > > Well, if we go for lock wrappers as Darrick suggested, I'd mirror naming > used for inode_lock(). That is IMO the least confusing option... And that > naming has _lock and _lock_shared suffixes. I'd like filemap_invalidate_lock and filemap_invalidate_lock_shared. --D > > Honza > > -- > Jan Kara <jack@...e.com> > SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists