linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: Handle I_DONTCACHE in iput_final() instead of generic_drop

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]

Date:   Fri, 4 Sep 2020 07:58:32 +1000
From:   Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:     Hao Li <lihao2018.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:     viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, ira.weiny@...el.com,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, y-goto@...itsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Handle I_DONTCACHE in iput_final() instead of
 generic_drop_inode()

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 06:13:13PM +0800, Hao Li wrote:
> If generic_drop_inode() returns true, it means iput_final() can evict
> this inode regardless of whether it is dirty or not. If we check
> I_DONTCACHE in generic_drop_inode(), any inode with this bit set will be
> evicted unconditionally. This is not the desired behavior because
> I_DONTCACHE only means the inode shouldn't be cached on the LRU list.
> As for whether we need to evict this inode, this is what
> generic_drop_inode() should do. This patch corrects the usage of
> I_DONTCACHE.
> 
> This patch was proposed in [1].
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200831003407.GE12096@dread.disaster.area/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hao Li <lihao2018.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  fs/inode.c         | 3 ++-
>  include/linux/fs.h | 3 +--
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
> index 72c4c347afb7..4e45d5ea3d0f 100644
> --- a/fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/inode.c
> @@ -1625,7 +1625,8 @@ static void iput_final(struct inode *inode)
>  	else
>  		drop = generic_drop_inode(inode);
>  
> -	if (!drop && (sb->s_flags & SB_ACTIVE)) {
> +	if (!drop && !(inode->i_state & I_DONTCACHE) &&
> +			(sb->s_flags & SB_ACTIVE)) {

FWIW, the format used in fs/inode.c is to align the logic
statements, not tab indent the additional lines in the statement.
i.e.

	if (!drop &&
	    !(inode->i_state & I_DONTCACHE) &&
	    (sb->s_flags & SB_ACTIVE)) {

Which gives a clear indication that there are all at the same
precedence and separate logic statements...

Otherwise the change looks good.

Probably best to resend with the fixes tag :)

Cheers,

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