linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] erofs: use netfs helpers manipulating request and subrequest

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, 21 Oct 2022 08:38:38 -0400
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To:     Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>, dhowells@...hat.com,
        xiang@...nel.org, chao@...nel.org, linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] erofs: use netfs helpers manipulating request and
 subrequest

On Fri, 2022-10-21 at 16:49 +0800, Jingbo Xu wrote:
> Use netfs_put_subrequest() and netfs_rreq_completed() completing request
> and subrequest.
> 
> It is worth noting that a noop netfs_request_ops is introduced for erofs
> since some netfs routine, e.g. netfs_free_request(), will call into
> this ops.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>  fs/erofs/fscache.c | 47 ++++++++++------------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/erofs/fscache.c b/fs/erofs/fscache.c
> index fe05bc51f9f2..fa3f4ab5e3b6 100644
> --- a/fs/erofs/fscache.c
> +++ b/fs/erofs/fscache.c
> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>   * Copyright (C) 2022, Bytedance Inc. All rights reserved.
>   */
>  #include <linux/fscache.h>
> +#include <trace/events/netfs.h>
>  #include "internal.h"
>  
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(erofs_domain_list_lock);
> @@ -11,6 +12,8 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(erofs_domain_cookies_lock);
>  static LIST_HEAD(erofs_domain_list);
>  static struct vfsmount *erofs_pseudo_mnt;
>  
> +static const struct netfs_request_ops erofs_noop_req_ops;
> +
>  static struct netfs_io_request *erofs_fscache_alloc_request(struct address_space *mapping,
>  					     loff_t start, size_t len)
>  {
> @@ -24,40 +27,12 @@ static struct netfs_io_request *erofs_fscache_alloc_request(struct address_space
>  	rreq->len	= len;
>  	rreq->mapping	= mapping;
>  	rreq->inode	= mapping->host;
> +	rreq->netfs_ops	= &erofs_noop_req_ops;
>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rreq->subrequests);
>  	refcount_set(&rreq->ref, 1);
>  	return rreq;
>  }
>  

Why is erofs allocating its own netfs structures? This seems quite
fragile, and a layering violation too.

> -static void erofs_fscache_put_request(struct netfs_io_request *rreq)
> -{
> -	if (!refcount_dec_and_test(&rreq->ref))
> -		return;
> -	if (rreq->cache_resources.ops)
> -		rreq->cache_resources.ops->end_operation(&rreq->cache_resources);
> -	kfree(rreq);
> -}
> -
> -static void erofs_fscache_put_subrequest(struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq)
> -{
> -	if (!refcount_dec_and_test(&subreq->ref))
> -		return;
> -	erofs_fscache_put_request(subreq->rreq);
> -	kfree(subreq);
> -}
> -
> -static void erofs_fscache_clear_subrequests(struct netfs_io_request *rreq)
> -{
> -	struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq;
> -
> -	while (!list_empty(&rreq->subrequests)) {
> -		subreq = list_first_entry(&rreq->subrequests,
> -				struct netfs_io_subrequest, rreq_link);
> -		list_del(&subreq->rreq_link);
> -		erofs_fscache_put_subrequest(subreq);
> -	}
> -}
> -
>  static void erofs_fscache_rreq_unlock_folios(struct netfs_io_request *rreq)
>  {
>  	struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq;
> @@ -114,11 +89,10 @@ static void erofs_fscache_rreq_unlock_folios(struct netfs_io_request *rreq)
>  static void erofs_fscache_rreq_complete(struct netfs_io_request *rreq)
>  {
>  	erofs_fscache_rreq_unlock_folios(rreq);
> -	erofs_fscache_clear_subrequests(rreq);
> -	erofs_fscache_put_request(rreq);
> +	netfs_rreq_completed(rreq, false);
>  }
>  
> -static void erofc_fscache_subreq_complete(void *priv,
> +static void erofs_fscache_subreq_complete(void *priv,
>  		ssize_t transferred_or_error, bool was_async)
>  {
>  	struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq = priv;
> @@ -130,7 +104,7 @@ static void erofc_fscache_subreq_complete(void *priv,
>  	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rreq->nr_outstanding))
>  		erofs_fscache_rreq_complete(rreq);
>  
> -	erofs_fscache_put_subrequest(subreq);
> +	netfs_put_subrequest(subreq, false, netfs_sreq_trace_put_terminated);
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -171,9 +145,8 @@ static int erofs_fscache_read_folios_async(struct fscache_cookie *cookie,
>  		}
>  
>  		subreq->start = pstart + done;
> -		subreq->len	=  len - done;
> +		subreq->len   =  len - done;
>  		subreq->flags = 1 << NETFS_SREQ_ONDEMAND;
> -
>  		list_add_tail(&subreq->rreq_link, &rreq->subrequests);
>  
>  		source = cres->ops->prepare_read(subreq, LLONG_MAX);
> @@ -184,7 +157,7 @@ static int erofs_fscache_read_folios_async(struct fscache_cookie *cookie,
>  				  source);
>  			ret = -EIO;
>  			subreq->error = ret;
> -			erofs_fscache_put_subrequest(subreq);
> +			netfs_put_subrequest(subreq, false, netfs_sreq_trace_put_failed);
>  			goto out;
>  		}
>  
> @@ -195,7 +168,7 @@ static int erofs_fscache_read_folios_async(struct fscache_cookie *cookie,
>  
>  		ret = fscache_read(cres, subreq->start, &iter,
>  				   NETFS_READ_HOLE_FAIL,
> -				   erofc_fscache_subreq_complete, subreq);
> +				   erofs_fscache_subreq_complete, subreq);
>  		if (ret == -EIOCBQUEUED)
>  			ret = 0;
>  		if (ret) {

I'd rather see this done differently. Either change erofs to use the
netfs infrastructure in a more standard fashion, or maybe consider
teaching erofs to talk to cachefiles directly?

IDK, but this sort of mucking around in the low level netfs objects
seems wrong to me.
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>