linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 17/54] fs: remove the inode from the LRU list on unlink/rmdir

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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aK-AQ6Xzkmz7zQ6X@dread.disaster.area>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 08:01:39 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, amir73il@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/54] fs: remove the inode from the LRU list on
 unlink/rmdir

On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 02:32:49PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 11:39:17AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > We can end up with an inode on the LRU list or the cached list, then at
> > some point in the future go to unlink that inode and then still have an
> > elevated i_count reference for that inode because it is on one of these
> > lists.
> > 
> > The more common case is the cached list. We open a file, write to it,
> > truncate some of it which triggers the inode_add_lru code in the
> > pagecache, adding it to the cached LRU.  Then we unlink this inode, and
> > it exists until writeback or reclaim kicks in and removes the inode.
> > 
> > To handle this case, delete the inode from the LRU list when it is
> > unlinked, so we have the best case scenario for immediately freeing the
> > inode.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
> > ---
> 
> I'm not too fond of this particular change I think it's really misplaced
> and the correct place is indeed drop_nlink() and clear_nlink().

I don't really like putting it in drop_nlink because that then puts
the inode LRU in the middle of filesystem transactions when lots of
different filesystem locks are held.

IF the LRU operations are in the VFS, then we know exactly what
locks are held when it is performed (current behaviour). However,
when done from the filesystem transaction context running
drop_nlink, we'll have different sets of locks and/or execution
contexts held for each different fs type.

> I'm pretty sure that the number of callers that hold i_lock around
> drop_nlink() and clear_nlink() is relatively small.

I think the calling context problem is wider than the obvious issue
with i_lock....

-Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com