[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <32188.1574336426@jrobl>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 20:40:26 +0900
From: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05g@...il.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: "zhengbin (A)" <zhengbin13@...wei.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
houtao1@...wei.com, yi.zhang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tmpfs: use ida to get inode number
Hugh Dickins:
> Internally (in Google) we do rely on good tmpfs inode numbers more
> than on those of other get_next_ino() filesystems, and carry a patch
> to mm/shmem.c for it to use 64-bit inode numbers (and separate inode
> number space for each superblock) - essentially,
>
> =09ino =3D sbinfo->next_ino++;
> =09/* Avoid 0 in the low 32 bits: might appear deleted */
> =09if (unlikely((unsigned int)ino =3D=3D 0))
> =09=09ino =3D sbinfo->next_ino++;
I agree with that "per superblock inum space", but I don't see your
point. How can you manage it fully? I mean how can you decide whether
the new inum is in use or not?
For example,
- you create a file which is assigned inum#10.
- you or other people create and unlink over and over on the same tmpfs.
- then sbinfo->next_ino will become zero, skipped, ok.
- and then it will be 10.
I don't think you want to share the same inum by two inodes.
Moreover, SysV SHM uses tmpfs and shmget(2) overwrite inum internally.
It will be another seed of a similar problem.
J. R. Okajima
Powered by blists - more mailing lists