| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:09:11 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/46] fs: dcache scale hash
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 08:44:41PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Add a new lock, dcache_hash_lock, to protect the dcache hash table from
> concurrent modification. d_hash is also protected by d_lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
> ---
> fs/dcache.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> include/linux/dcache.h | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
> index 4f9ccbe..50c65c7 100644
> --- a/fs/dcache.c
> +++ b/fs/dcache.c
> @@ -35,12 +35,27 @@
> #include <linux/hardirq.h>
> #include "internal.h"
>
> +/*
> + * Usage:
> + * dcache_hash_lock protects dcache hash table
> + *
> + * Ordering:
> + * dcache_lock
> + * dentry->d_lock
> + * dcache_hash_lock
> + *
What locking is used to keep DCACHE_UNHASHED/d_unhashed() in check
with the whether the dentry is on the hash list or not? It looks to
me that to make any hash modification, you have to hold both the
dentry->d_lock and the dcache_hash_lock to keep them in step. If
this is correct, can you add this to the comments above?
> + * if (dentry1 < dentry2)
> + * dentry1->d_lock
> + * dentry2->d_lock
> + */
Perhaps the places where we need to lock two dentries should use a
wrapper like we do for other objects. Such as:
void dentry_dlock_two(struct dentry *d1, struct dentry *d2)
{
if (d1 < d2) {
spin_lock(&d1->d_lock);
spin_lock_nested(&d2->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED);
} else {
spin_lock(&d2->d_lock);
spin_lock_nested(&d1->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED);
}
}
> @@ -1581,7 +1598,9 @@ void d_rehash(struct dentry * entry)
> {
> spin_lock(&dcache_lock);
> spin_lock(&entry->d_lock);
> + spin_lock(&dcache_hash_lock);
> _d_rehash(entry);
> + spin_unlock(&dcache_hash_lock);
> spin_unlock(&entry->d_lock);
> spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
> }
Shouldn't we really kill _d_rehash() by replacing all the callers
with direct calls to __d_rehash() first? There doesn't seem to be much
sense to keep both methods around....
> @@ -1661,8 +1680,6 @@ static void switch_names(struct dentry *dentry, struct dentry *target)
> */
> static void d_move_locked(struct dentry * dentry, struct dentry * target)
> {
> - struct hlist_head *list;
> -
> if (!dentry->d_inode)
> printk(KERN_WARNING "VFS: moving negative dcache entry\n");
>
> @@ -1679,14 +1696,11 @@ static void d_move_locked(struct dentry * dentry, struct dentry * target)
> }
>
> /* Move the dentry to the target hash queue, if on different bucket */
> - if (d_unhashed(dentry))
> - goto already_unhashed;
> -
> - hlist_del_rcu(&dentry->d_hash);
> -
> -already_unhashed:
> - list = d_hash(target->d_parent, target->d_name.hash);
> - __d_rehash(dentry, list);
> + spin_lock(&dcache_hash_lock);
> + if (!d_unhashed(dentry))
> + hlist_del_rcu(&dentry->d_hash);
> + __d_rehash(dentry, d_hash(target->d_parent, target->d_name.hash));
> + spin_unlock(&dcache_hash_lock);
>
> /* Unhash the target: dput() will then get rid of it */
> __d_drop(target);
> @@ -1883,7 +1897,9 @@ struct dentry *d_materialise_unique(struct dentry *dentry, struct inode *inode)
> found_lock:
> spin_lock(&actual->d_lock);
> found:
> + spin_lock(&dcache_hash_lock);
> _d_rehash(actual);
> + spin_unlock(&dcache_hash_lock);
> spin_unlock(&actual->d_lock);
> spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
> out_nolock:
> diff --git a/include/linux/dcache.h b/include/linux/dcache.h
> index 6b5760b..7ce20f5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/dcache.h
> +++ b/include/linux/dcache.h
> @@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ struct dentry_operations {
>
> #define DCACHE_CANT_MOUNT 0x0100
>
> +extern spinlock_t dcache_hash_lock;
> extern spinlock_t dcache_lock;
> extern seqlock_t rename_lock;
>
> @@ -204,7 +205,9 @@ static inline void __d_drop(struct dentry *dentry)
> {
> if (!(dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_UNHASHED)) {
> dentry->d_flags |= DCACHE_UNHASHED;
> + spin_lock(&dcache_hash_lock);
> hlist_del_rcu(&dentry->d_hash);
> + spin_unlock(&dcache_hash_lock);
> }
> }
Un-inline __d_drop so you don't need to make the dcache_hash_lock
visible outside of fs/dcache.c. That happens later in the series
anyway, so may as well do it now...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists