linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] dcache: add a new enum type for 'dentry_d_lock

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: <20191130193615.GJ20752@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Sat, 30 Nov 2019 11:36:15 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, rostedt@...dmis.org, oleg@...hat.com,
        mchehab+samsung@...nel.org, corbet@....net, tytso@....edu,
        jmorris@...ei.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, zhengbin13@...wei.com,
        yi.zhang@...wei.com, chenxiang66@...ilicon.com, xiexiuqi@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] dcache: add a new enum type for
 'dentry_d_lock_class'

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 03:53:10PM +0800, yukuai (C) wrote:
> On 2019/11/30 11:43, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 10:02:23AM +0800, yu kuai wrote:
> > > However, a single 'DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED' may not be enough if more than
> > > two dentry are involed. So, add in 'DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED_TWICE'.
> > 
> > No.  These need meaningful names.  Indeed, I think D_LOCK_NESTED is
> > a terrible name.
> > 
> > The exception is __d_move() where I think we should actually name the
> > different lock classes instead of using a bare '2' and '3'.  Something
> > like this, perhaps:
> 
> Thanks for looking into this, do you mind if I replace your patch with the
> first two patches in the patchset?

That's fine by me, but I think we should wait for Al to give his approval
before submitting a new version.

I'm also not entirely content with the explanation I wrote last night.
Maybe this instead ...

 /*
- * dentry->d_lock spinlock nesting subclasses:
+ * dentry->d_lock spinlock nesting subclasses.  Always taken in increasing
+ * order although some subclasses may be skipped.  If one dentry is the
+ * ancestor of another, then the ancestor's d_lock is taken before the
+ * descendent.  If NORMAL and PARENT_2 do not have a hierarchical relationship
+ * then you must hold the s_vfs_rename_mutex to prevent another thread taking
+ * the locks in the opposite order, or NORMAL and PARENT_2 becoming
+ * hierarchical through a rename operation.
  *
  * 0: normal
- * 1: nested
+ * 1: either a descendent of "normal" or a cousin.
+ * 2: child of the "normal" dentry
+ * 3: child of the "parent2" dentry
  */
 enum dentry_d_lock_class
 {
-       DENTRY_D_LOCK_NORMAL, /* implicitly used by plain spin_lock() APIs. */
-       DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED
+       DENTRY_D_LOCK_NORMAL,   /* implicitly used by plain spin_lock() APIs */
+       DENTRY_D_LOCK_PARENT_2, /* not an ancestor of normal */
+       DENTRY_D_LOCK_CHILD,    /* nests under parent's lock */
+       DENTRY_D_LOCK_CHILD_2,  /* PARENT_2's child */
 };