linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2] mm, netfs: Provide a means of invalidation without using launder

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]

Message-ID: <ZgRpPd1Ado-0_iYx@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 18:45:17 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, netfs@...ts.linux.dev,
	v9fs@...ts.linux.dev, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
	ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, devel@...ts.orangefs.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] mm, netfs: Provide a means of invalidation
 without using launder_folio

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 05:55:45PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> +int filemap_invalidate_inode(struct inode *inode, bool flush)
> +{
> +	struct address_space *mapping = inode->i_mapping;
> +
> +	if (!mapping || !mapping->nrpages)
> +		goto out;
> +
> +	/* Prevent new folios from being added to the inode. */
> +	filemap_invalidate_lock(mapping);

I'm kind of surprised that the callers wouldn't want to hold that lock
over a call to this function.  I guess you're working on the callers,
so you'd know better than I would, but I would have used lockdep to
assert that invalidate_lock was held.

> +	if (!mapping->nrpages)
> +		goto unlock;
> +
> +	/* Assume there are probably PTEs only if there are mmaps. */
> +	if (unlikely(!RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&mapping->i_mmap.rb_root)))
> +		unmap_mapping_pages(mapping, 0, ULONG_MAX, false);

Is this optimisation worth it?  We're already doing some expensive
operations here, does saving cycling the i_mmap_lock really help
anything?  You'll note that unmap_mapping_pages() already does this
check inside the lock.