[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c2eea9eb-e4b2-efdf-8edc-a929ac276c19@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2022 14:58:33 +0800
From: Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, idryomov@...il.com,
dhowells@...hat.com
Cc: vshankar@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org,
keescook@...omium.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cachefs@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] netfs: release the folio lock and put the folio
before retrying
On 7/1/22 6:38 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-07-01 at 10:29 +0800, xiubli@...hat.com wrote:
>> From: Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>
>>
>> The lower layer filesystem should always make sure the folio is
>> locked and do the unlock and put the folio in netfs layer.
>>
>> URL: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/56423
>> Signed-off-by: Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> fs/netfs/buffered_read.c | 5 ++++-
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/netfs/buffered_read.c b/fs/netfs/buffered_read.c
>> index 42f892c5712e..257fd37c2461 100644
>> --- a/fs/netfs/buffered_read.c
>> +++ b/fs/netfs/buffered_read.c
>> @@ -351,8 +351,11 @@ int netfs_write_begin(struct netfs_inode *ctx,
>> ret = ctx->ops->check_write_begin(file, pos, len, folio, _fsdata);
>> if (ret < 0) {
>> trace_netfs_failure(NULL, NULL, ret, netfs_fail_check_write_begin);
>> - if (ret == -EAGAIN)
>> + if (ret == -EAGAIN) {
>> + folio_unlock(folio);
>> + folio_put(folio);
>> goto retry;
>> + }
>> goto error;
>> }
>> }
> I don't know here... I think it might be better to just expect that when
> this function returns an error that the folio has already been unlocked.
> Doing it this way will mean that you will lock and unlock the folio a
> second time for no reason.
>
> Maybe something like this instead?
>
> diff --git a/fs/netfs/buffered_read.c b/fs/netfs/buffered_read.c
> index 42f892c5712e..8ae7b0f4c909 100644
> --- a/fs/netfs/buffered_read.c
> +++ b/fs/netfs/buffered_read.c
> @@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ int netfs_write_begin(struct netfs_inode *ctx,
> trace_netfs_failure(NULL, NULL, ret, netfs_fail_check_write_begin);
> if (ret == -EAGAIN)
> goto retry;
> - goto error;
> + goto error_unlocked;
> }
> }
>
> @@ -418,6 +418,7 @@ int netfs_write_begin(struct netfs_inode *ctx,
> error:
> folio_unlock(folio);
> folio_put(folio);
> +error_unlocked:
Should we also put the folio in ceph and afs ? Won't it introduce
something like use-after-free bug ?
Maybe we should unlock it in ceph and afs and put it in netfs layer.
-- Xiubo
> _leave(" = %d", ret);
> return ret;
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists