[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yr8OSxotW2VEUyKQ@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 08:10:03 -0700
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To: Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@...cle.com>
Cc: tj@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
m.szyprowski@...sung.com, michael@...le.cc, robh@...nel.org,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
guillaume.tucker@...labora.com, pmladek@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernfs: Avoid re-adding kernfs_node into
kernfs_notify_list.
On Sat, Jul 02, 2022 at 12:50:47AM +1000, Imran Khan wrote:
> Kick fsnotify only if an event is not already scheduled for target
> kernfs node. commit b8f35fa1188b ("kernfs: Change kernfs_notify_list to
> llist.") changed kernfs_notify_list to a llist.
> Prior to this list was a singly linked list, protected by
> kernfs_notify_lock. Whenever a kernfs_node was added to the list
> its ->attr.notify_next was set to head of the list and upon removal
> ->attr.notify_next was reset to NULL. Addition to kernfs_notify_list
> would only happen if kernfs_node was not already in the list i.e.
> if ->attr.notify_next was NULL. commit b8f35fa1188b ("kernfs: Change
> kernfs_notify_list to llist.") removed this checking and this was wrong
> as it resulted in multiple additions for same kernfs_node.
>
> So far this bug only got reflected with some console related setting.
> Nathan found this issue when console was specified both in DT and in
> kernel command line and Marek found this issue when earlycon was enabled.
>
> This patch avoids adding an already added kernfs_node into notify list.
>
> Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
> Reported-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
This should also include:
Reported-by: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
> Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
> Fixes: b8f35fa1188b ("kernfs: Change kernfs_notify_list to llist.")
> Signed-off-by: Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@...cle.com>
For the ARCH=um case that I noticed:
Tested-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
> ---
> fs/kernfs/file.c | 9 ++++++---
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/kernfs/file.c b/fs/kernfs/file.c
> index bb933221b4bae..e8ec054e11c63 100644
> --- a/fs/kernfs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/kernfs/file.c
> @@ -917,6 +917,7 @@ static void kernfs_notify_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
> if (free == NULL)
> return;
>
> + free->next = NULL;
> attr = llist_entry(free, struct kernfs_elem_attr, notify_next);
> kn = attribute_to_node(attr, struct kernfs_node, attr);
> root = kernfs_root(kn);
> @@ -992,9 +993,11 @@ void kernfs_notify(struct kernfs_node *kn)
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> /* schedule work to kick fsnotify */
> - kernfs_get(kn);
> - llist_add(&kn->attr.notify_next, &kernfs_notify_list);
> - schedule_work(&kernfs_notify_work);
> + if (kn->attr.notify_next.next != NULL) {
> + kernfs_get(kn);
> + llist_add(&kn->attr.notify_next, &kernfs_notify_list);
> + schedule_work(&kernfs_notify_work);
> + }
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kernfs_notify);
>
>
> base-commit: 6cc11d2a1759275b856e464265823d94aabd5eaf
> --
> 2.30.2
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists