| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 07:32:42 -0500
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Alexander Viro
<viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...nel.org>,
Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>, Dominique Martinet
<asmadeus@...ewreck.org>, Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Marc Dionne
<marc.dionne@...istor.com>, Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>, Ilya Dryomov
<idryomov@...il.com>, Alexander Aring <aahringo@...hat.com>, David Teigland
<teigland@...hat.com>, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, Andreas
Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>, Trond Myklebust
<trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>, Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>, Chuck
Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@...app.com>, Dai
Ngo <Dai.Ngo@...cle.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>, Jan Kara
<jack@...e.cz>, Mark Fasheh <mark@...heh.com>, Joel Becker
<jlbec@...lplan.org>, Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com>, Steve French
<sfrench@...ba.org>, Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.com>, Ronnie Sahlberg
<lsahlber@...hat.com>, Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@...rosoft.com>, Namjae Jeon
<linkinjeon@...nel.org>, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Masami Hiramatsu
<mhiramat@...nel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, v9fs@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
gfs2@...ts.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/20] filelock: convert the IS_* macros to take
file_lock_core
On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 09:16 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > I couldn't get them to work properly as macros, so convert them
> > to static inlines instead (which is probably better for the type safety
> > anyway).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
> > ---
> > fs/locks.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> > index 770aaa5809ba..eddf4d767d5d 100644
> > --- a/fs/locks.c
> > +++ b/fs/locks.c
> > @@ -70,10 +70,26 @@
> >
> > #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> >
> > -#define IS_POSIX(fl) (fl->fl_core.fl_flags & FL_POSIX)
> Used 3 times... once as
> if (IS_POSIX(blocker) && !IS_OFDLCK(blocker))
> Can an IS_POSIX lock also be IS_OFDLCK ??
>
Yes. They conflict with one another so they're both considered POSIX
locks.
>
> > -#define IS_FLOCK(fl) (fl->fl_core.fl_flags & FL_FLOCK)
> Used once.
>
> > -#define IS_LEASE(fl) (fl->fl_core.fl_flags & (FL_LEASE|FL_DELEG|FL_LAYOUT))
> Used twice. Either "IS_LEASE" approves things that aren't leases, or
> FL_LEASE is not set on all leases.... Names could be improved.
>
Good point.
> > -#define IS_OFDLCK(fl) (fl->fl_core.fl_flags & FL_OFDLCK)
>
> used 4 times - a clear winner :-)
>
> If it would me, I would simply discard these macros and open-code the
> tests. I don't think IS_FLOCK() is easier to read for someone who knows
> the code, and I think IS_LEASE() is actually harder to read for someone
> who doesn't know the code, as that it does it not really obvious.
>
> But this is just a suggestion, I won't push it.
>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
>
>
It's a good suggestion, and I considered doing this when I converted
over the macros to inlines. I may go ahead and make this change for v2.
> > +static inline bool IS_POSIX(struct file_lock_core *flc)
> > +{
> > + return flc->fl_flags & FL_POSIX;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline bool IS_FLOCK(struct file_lock_core *flc)
> > +{
> > + return flc->fl_flags & FL_FLOCK;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline bool IS_OFDLCK(struct file_lock_core *flc)
> > +{
> > + return flc->fl_flags & FL_OFDLCK;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline bool IS_LEASE(struct file_lock_core *flc)
> > +{
> > + return flc->fl_flags & (FL_LEASE|FL_DELEG|FL_LAYOUT);
> > +}
> > +
> > #define IS_REMOTELCK(fl) (fl->fl_core.fl_pid <= 0)
> >
> > static bool lease_breaking(struct file_lock *fl)
> > @@ -761,6 +777,7 @@ static void __locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
> > struct file_lock *))
> > {
> > struct file_lock *fl;
> > + struct file_lock_core *bflc;
> > BUG_ON(!list_empty(&waiter->fl_core.fl_blocked_member));
> >
> > new_blocker:
> > @@ -773,7 +790,9 @@ static void __locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
> > waiter->fl_core.fl_blocker = blocker;
> > list_add_tail(&waiter->fl_core.fl_blocked_member,
> > &blocker->fl_core.fl_blocked_requests);
> > - if (IS_POSIX(blocker) && !IS_OFDLCK(blocker))
> > +
> > + bflc = &blocker->fl_core;
> > + if (IS_POSIX(bflc) && !IS_OFDLCK(bflc))
> > locks_insert_global_blocked(&waiter->fl_core);
> >
> > /* The requests in waiter->fl_blocked are known to conflict with
> > @@ -998,6 +1017,7 @@ static int posix_locks_deadlock(struct file_lock *caller_fl,
> > struct file_lock *block_fl)
> > {
> > int i = 0;
> > + struct file_lock_core *flc = &caller_fl->fl_core;
> >
> > lockdep_assert_held(&blocked_lock_lock);
> >
> > @@ -1005,7 +1025,7 @@ static int posix_locks_deadlock(struct file_lock *caller_fl,
> > * This deadlock detector can't reasonably detect deadlocks with
> > * FL_OFDLCK locks, since they aren't owned by a process, per-se.
> > */
> > - if (IS_OFDLCK(caller_fl))
> > + if (IS_OFDLCK(flc))
> > return 0;
> >
> > while ((block_fl = what_owner_is_waiting_for(block_fl))) {
> > @@ -2157,7 +2177,7 @@ static pid_t locks_translate_pid(struct file_lock *fl, struct pid_namespace *ns)
> > pid_t vnr;
> > struct pid *pid;
> >
> > - if (IS_OFDLCK(fl))
> > + if (IS_OFDLCK(&fl->fl_core))
> > return -1;
> > if (IS_REMOTELCK(fl))
> > return fl->fl_core.fl_pid;
> > @@ -2721,19 +2741,19 @@ static void lock_get_status(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl,
> > if (repeat)
> > seq_printf(f, "%*s", repeat - 1 + (int)strlen(pfx), pfx);
> >
> > - if (IS_POSIX(fl)) {
> > + if (IS_POSIX(&fl->fl_core)) {
> > if (fl->fl_core.fl_flags & FL_ACCESS)
> > seq_puts(f, "ACCESS");
> > - else if (IS_OFDLCK(fl))
> > + else if (IS_OFDLCK(&fl->fl_core))
> > seq_puts(f, "OFDLCK");
> > else
> > seq_puts(f, "POSIX ");
> >
> > seq_printf(f, " %s ",
> > (inode == NULL) ? "*NOINODE*" : "ADVISORY ");
> > - } else if (IS_FLOCK(fl)) {
> > + } else if (IS_FLOCK(&fl->fl_core)) {
> > seq_puts(f, "FLOCK ADVISORY ");
> > - } else if (IS_LEASE(fl)) {
> > + } else if (IS_LEASE(&fl->fl_core)) {
> > if (fl->fl_core.fl_flags & FL_DELEG)
> > seq_puts(f, "DELEG ");
> > else
> > @@ -2748,7 +2768,7 @@ static void lock_get_status(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl,
> > } else {
> > seq_puts(f, "UNKNOWN UNKNOWN ");
> > }
> > - type = IS_LEASE(fl) ? target_leasetype(fl) : fl->fl_core.fl_type;
> > + type = IS_LEASE(&fl->fl_core) ? target_leasetype(fl) : fl->fl_core.fl_type;
> >
> > seq_printf(f, "%s ", (type == F_WRLCK) ? "WRITE" :
> > (type == F_RDLCK) ? "READ" : "UNLCK");
> > @@ -2760,7 +2780,7 @@ static void lock_get_status(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl,
> > } else {
> > seq_printf(f, "%d <none>:0 ", fl_pid);
> > }
> > - if (IS_POSIX(fl)) {
> > + if (IS_POSIX(&fl->fl_core)) {
> > if (fl->fl_end == OFFSET_MAX)
> > seq_printf(f, "%Ld EOF\n", fl->fl_start);
> > else
> >
> > --
> > 2.43.0
> >
> >
>
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists