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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 09:09:13 +0800
From: Baokun Li <libaokun@...weicloud.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
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>,
 Baokun Li <libaokun@...weicloud.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] cachefiles: flush all requests for the object that
 is being dropped

On 2024/6/27 23:18, Christian Brauner wrote:
> 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?
Sure, I'm organising to combine the two patch series today and
send it out as v3.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Baokun Li