linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fuse: fix conversion of fuse_reverse_inval_entry() to start

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: <20251201170813.GH3538@ZenIV>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 17:08:13 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	Val Packett <val@...kett.cool>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
	Chris Mason <clm@...com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Tyler Hicks <code@...icks.com>,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
	Olga Kornievskaia <okorniev@...hat.com>,
	Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@...cle.com>, Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>,
	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
	Carlos Maiolino <cem@...nel.org>,
	John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>,
	Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>,
	Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
	Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netfs@...ts.linux.dev, ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse: fix conversion of fuse_reverse_inval_entry() to
 start_removing()

On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 03:03:08PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 at 09:33, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 09:22:54AM +0100, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think there is a point in optimizing parallel dir operations
> > > with FUSE server cache invalidation, but maybe I am missing
> > > something.
> >
> > The interesting part is the expected semantics of operation;
> > d_invalidate() side definitely doesn't need any of that cruft,
> > but I would really like to understand what that function
> > is supposed to do.
> >
> > Miklos, could you post a brain dump on that?
> 
> This function is supposed to invalidate a dentry due to remote changes
> (FUSE_NOTIFY_INVAL_ENTRY).  Originally it was supplied a parent ID and
> a name and called d_invalidate() on the looked up dentry.
> 
> Then it grew a variant (FUSE_NOTIFY_DELETE) that was also supplied a
> child ID, which was matched against the looked up inode.  This was
> commit 451d0f599934 ("FUSE: Notifying the kernel of deletion."),
> Apparently this worked around the fact that at that time
> d_invalidate() returned -EBUSY if the target was still in use and
> didn't unhash the dentry in that case.
> 
> That was later changed by commit bafc9b754f75 ("vfs: More precise
> tests in d_invalidate") to unconditionally unhash the target, which
> effectively made FUSE_NOTIFY_INVAL_ENTRY and FUSE_NOTIFY_DELETE
> equivalent and the code in question unnecessary.
> 
> For the future, we could also introduce FUSE_NOTIFY_MOVE, that would
> differentiate between a delete and a move, while
> FUSE_NOTIFY_INVAL_ENTRY would continue to be the common (deleted or
> moved) notification.

Then as far as VFS is concerned, it's an equivalent of "we'd done
a dcache lookup and revalidate told us to bugger off", which does
*not* need locking the parent - the same sequence can very well
happen without touching any inode locks.

IOW, from the point of view of locking protocol changes that's not
a removal at all.

Or do you need them serialized for fuse-internal purposes?