[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230601-gebracht-gesehen-c779a56b3bf3@brauner>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2023 15:58:58 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] fs: Establish locking order for unrelated
directories
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 12:58:24PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Currently the locking order of inode locks for directories that are not
> in ancestor relationship is not defined because all operations that
> needed to lock two directories like this were serialized by
> sb->s_vfs_rename_mutex. However some filesystems need to lock two
> subdirectories for RENAME_EXCHANGE operations and for this we need the
> locking order established even for two tree-unrelated directories.
> Provide a helper function lock_two_inodes() that establishes lock
> ordering for any two inodes and use it in lock_two_directories().
>
> CC: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> ---
> fs/inode.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> fs/internal.h | 2 ++
> fs/namei.c | 4 ++--
> 3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
> index 577799b7855f..4000ab08bbc0 100644
> --- a/fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/inode.c
> @@ -1103,6 +1103,48 @@ void discard_new_inode(struct inode *inode)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(discard_new_inode);
>
> +/**
> + * lock_two_inodes - lock two inodes (may be regular files but also dirs)
> + *
> + * Lock any non-NULL argument. The caller must make sure that if he is passing
> + * in two directories, one is not ancestor of the other. Zero, one or two
> + * objects may be locked by this function.
> + *
> + * @inode1: first inode to lock
> + * @inode2: second inode to lock
> + * @subclass1: inode lock subclass for the first lock obtained
> + * @subclass2: inode lock subclass for the second lock obtained
> + */
> +void lock_two_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2,
> + unsigned subclass1, unsigned subclass2)
> +{
> + if (!inode1 || !inode2)
I think you forgot the opening bracket...
I can just fix this up for you though.
> + /*
> + * Make sure @subclass1 will be used for the acquired lock.
> + * This is not strictly necessary (no current caller cares) but
> + * let's keep things consistent.
> + */
> + if (!inode1)
> + swap(inode1, inode2);
> + goto lock;
> + }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists