linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] cachefiles: flush all requests for the object that is being dropped

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: <20240627-beizeiten-hecht-0efad69e0e38@brauner>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 17:18:40 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Baokun Li <libaokun@...weicloud.com>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, netfs@...ts.linux.dev, 
	dhowells@...hat.com, hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com, jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com, 
	zhujia.zj@...edance.com, linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yangerkun@...wei.com, houtao1@...wei.com, yukuai3@...wei.com, 
	wozizhi@...wei.com, Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] cachefiles: flush all requests for the object
 that is being dropped

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 07:20:16PM GMT, Baokun Li wrote:
> On 2024/6/27 19:01, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-05-15 at 20:51 +0800, libaokun@...weicloud.com wrote:
> > > From: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
> > > 
> > > Because after an object is dropped, requests for that object are
> > > useless,
> > > flush them to avoid causing other problems.
> > > 
> > > This prepares for the later addition of cancel_work_sync(). After the
> > > reopen requests is generated, flush it to avoid cancel_work_sync()
> > > blocking by waiting for daemon to complete the reopen requests.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
> > > ---
> > >   fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >   1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c b/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c
> > > index 73da4d4eaa9b..d24bff43499b 100644
> > > --- a/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c
> > > +++ b/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c
> > > @@ -564,12 +564,31 @@ int cachefiles_ondemand_init_object(struct
> > > cachefiles_object *object)
> > >   void cachefiles_ondemand_clean_object(struct cachefiles_object
> > > *object)
> > >   {
> > > +	unsigned long index;
> > > +	struct cachefiles_req *req;
> > > +	struct cachefiles_cache *cache;
> > > +
> > >   	if (!object->ondemand)
> > >   		return;
> > >   	cachefiles_ondemand_send_req(object, CACHEFILES_OP_CLOSE, 0,
> > >   			cachefiles_ondemand_init_close_req, NULL);
> > > +
> > > +	if (!object->ondemand->ondemand_id)
> > > +		return;
> > > +
> > > +	/* Flush all requests for the object that is being dropped.
> > > */
> > I wouldn't call this a "Flush". In the context of writeback, that
> > usually means that we're writing out pages now in order to do something
> > else. In this case, it looks like you're more canceling these requests
> > since you're marking them with an error and declaring them complete.
> Makes sense, I'll update 'flush' to 'cancel' in the comment and subject.
> 
> I am not a native speaker of English, so some of the expressions may
> not be accurate, thank you for correcting me.

Can you please resend all patch series that we're supposed to take for
this cycle, please?