[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241004-holzweg-wahrgemacht-c1429b882127@brauner>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 10:01:35 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
oleg@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, paulmck@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org,
surenb@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, mjguzik@...il.com,
jannh@...gle.com, mhocko@...nel.org, vbabka@...e.cz, mingo@...nel.org,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 tip/perf/core 3/5] fs: add back RCU-delayed freeing of
FMODE_BACKING file
On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 11:13:54AM GMT, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 03:52:05PM GMT, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > 6cf41fcfe099 ("backing file: free directly") switched FMODE_BACKING
> > files to direct freeing as back then there were no use cases requiring
> > RCU protected access to such files.
> >
> > Now, with speculative lockless VMA-to-uprobe lookup logic, we do need to
> > have a guarantee that struct file memory is not going to be freed from
> > under us during speculative check. So add back RCU-delayed freeing
> > logic.
> >
> > We use headless kfree_rcu_mightsleep() variant, as file_free() is only
> > called for FMODE_BACKING files in might_sleep() context.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
> > ---
>
> Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Fwiw, I have another patch series for files that I'm testing that will
require me to switch FMODE_BACKING to a SLAB_TYPSAFE_BY_RCU cache. That
shouldn't matter for your use-case though.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists