linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ceph: streamline request head structures in MDS client

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]
Message-ID: <CAOi1vP_VvZCYzDnuhAzaJ51DeFhsO9ZVvbEL-Rc7wPPWnJyA1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 20:33:52 +0100
From: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>
To: Liang Jie <buaajxlj@....com>
Cc: Slava.Dubeyko@....com, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, fanggeng@...iang.com, 
	liangjie@...iang.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xiubli@...hat.com, 
	yangchen11@...iang.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ceph: streamline request head structures in MDS client

On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 2:53 PM Liang Jie <buaajxlj@....com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:15:11 +0100, Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 8:25=E2=80=AFPM Viacheslav Dubeyko
> > <Slava.Dubeyko@....com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2025-01-10 at 18:05 +0800, Liang Jie wrote:
> > > > From: Liang Jie <liangjie@...iang.com>
> > > >
> > > > The existence of the ceph_mds_request_head_old structure in the MDS
> > > > client
> > > > code is no longer required due to improvements in handling different
> > > > MDS
> > > > request header versions. This patch removes the now redundant
> > > > ceph_mds_request_head_old structure and replaces its usage with the
> > > > flexible and extensible ceph_mds_request_head structure.
> > > >
> > > > Changes include:
> > > > - Modification of find_legacy_request_head to directly cast the
> > > > pointer to
> > > >   ceph_mds_request_head_legacy without going through the old
> > > > structure.
> > > > - Update sizeof calculations in create_request_message to use
> > > > offsetofend
> > > >   for consistency and future-proofing, rather than referencing the
> > > > old
> > > >   structure.
> > > > - Use of the structured ceph_mds_request_head directly instead of the
> > > > old
> > > >   one.
> > > >
> > > > Additionally, this consolidation normalizes the handling of
> > > > request_head_version v1 to align with versions v2 and v3, leading to
> > > > a
> > > > more consistent and maintainable codebase.
> > > >
> > > > These changes simplify the codebase and reduce potential confusion
> > > > stemming
> > > > from the existence of an obsolete structure.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Liang Jie <liangjie@...iang.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  fs/ceph/mds_client.c         | 16 ++++++++--------
> > > >  include/linux/ceph/ceph_fs.h | 14 --------------
> > > >  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Looks good to me. Nice cleanup.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@....com>
> >
> > Applied.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >                 Ilya
>
> Hi Ilya,
>
> I have recently received a warning from the kernel test robot about an indentation
> issue adjacent to the changes made in my this patch.
>
> The warning is as follows:
> (link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202501172005.IoKVy2Op-lkp@intel.com/)
>
> > New smatch warnings:
> > fs/ceph/mds_client.c:3298 __prepare_send_request() warn: inconsistent indenting
> >
> > vim +3298 fs/ceph/mds_client.c
> >
> > 2f2dc053404feb Sage Weil      2009-10-06  3272
> > ...
> > ce0d5bd3a6c176 Xiubo Li       2023-07-25  3295        if (req->r_attempts) {
> > 164b631927701b Liang Jie      2025-01-10  3296                old_max_retry = sizeof_field(struct ceph_mds_request_head,
> > ce0d5bd3a6c176 Xiubo Li       2023-07-25  3297                                            num_retry);
> > ce0d5bd3a6c176 Xiubo Li       2023-07-25 @3298               old_max_retry = 1 << (old_max_retry * BITS_PER_BYTE);
> > ce0d5bd3a6c176 Xiubo Li       2023-07-25  3299               if ((old_version && req->r_attempts >= old_max_retry) ||
> > ce0d5bd3a6c176 Xiubo Li       2023-07-25  3300                   ((uint32_t)req->r_attempts >= U32_MAX)) {
> > 38d46409c4639a Xiubo Li       2023-06-12  3301                        pr_warn_ratelimited_client(cl, "request tid %llu seq overflow\n",
> > 38d46409c4639a Xiubo Li       2023-06-12  3302                                                   req->r_tid);
> > 546a5d6122faae Xiubo Li       2022-03-30  3303                        return -EMULTIHOP;
> > 546a5d6122faae Xiubo Li       2022-03-30  3304               }
> > ce0d5bd3a6c176 Xiubo Li       2023-07-25  3305        }
>
> The warning indicates suspect code indent on line 3298, existing before my
> proposed changes were made. After investigating the issue, it has become clear
> that the warning stems from a pre-existing code block that uses 15 spaces for
> indentation instead of conforming to the standard 16-space (two tabs) indentation.
>
> I am writing to seek your advice on how best to proceed. Would you recommend that
> I adjust the indentation within the scope of my current patch, or would it be more
> appropriate to address this as a separate style fix, given that the indentation
> issue is not directly introduced by my changes?

Hi Liang,

I noticed the indentation mismatch myself and, when applying, edited
your patch to be consistent with the pre-existing block (it's actually
a tab + 7 spaces, no idea why):

https://github.com/ceph/ceph-client/commit/929fba81687e4ba6ed9af18fc1f34e76ac90772a

It looks like this warning was generated based on the patch as posted,
not as applied, so it can be ignored.

>
> I am happy to make the necessary adjustments to ensure the code base adheres to the
> kernel's coding standards. However, I also want to respect the best practices of
> contributing to the project and maintain the clarity and focus of my patch.
>
> Kindly advise on the preferred way forward.
>
> Thank you for your time and guidance.

Thank you for being thorough!

                Ilya