linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 39/54] fs: remove I_WILL_FREE|I

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: <20250828-mundtot-gedacht-577d180facf7@brauner>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 14:35:50 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Cc: 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 39/54] fs: remove I_WILL_FREE|I_FREEING check from
 dquot.c

On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 11:39:39AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> We can use the reference count to see if the inode is live.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
> ---
>  fs/quota/dquot.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/quota/dquot.c b/fs/quota/dquot.c
> index df4a9b348769..90e69653c261 100644
> --- a/fs/quota/dquot.c
> +++ b/fs/quota/dquot.c
> @@ -1030,14 +1030,16 @@ static int add_dquot_ref(struct super_block *sb, int type)
>  	spin_lock(&sb->s_inode_list_lock);
>  	list_for_each_entry(inode, &sb->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
>  		spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> -		if ((inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW)) ||
> +		if ((inode->i_state & I_NEW) ||
>  		    !atomic_read(&inode->i_writecount) ||
>  		    !dqinit_needed(inode, type)) {
>  			spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>  			continue;
>  		}
> -		__iget(inode);
>  		spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> +
> +		if (!igrab(inode))
> +			continue;

Using this to drop a comment that I mentioned to you. I think we should
have an iterator for this because we have the exact same pattern in so
many places it's annoying.