[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251217100605.GT1712166@ZenIV>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 10:06:05 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
Cc: brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, clm@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: make sure to fail try_to_unlazy() and
try_to_unlazy() for LOOKUP_CACHED
On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 10:11:04AM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 10:07 AM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 09:47:04AM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > > One remaining weirdness is terminate_walk() walking the symlink stack
> > > after drop_links().
> >
> > What weirdness? If we are not in RCU mode, we need to drop symlink bodies
> > *and* drop symlink references?
>
> One would expect a routine named drop_links() would handle the
> entirety of clean up of symlinks.
>
> Seeing how it only handles some of it, it should be renamed to better
> indicate what it is doing, but that's a potential clean up for later.
Take a look at the callers. All 3 of them.
1) terminate_walk(): drop all symlink bodies, in non-RCU mode drop
all paths as well.
2) a couple in legitimize_links(): *always* called in RCU mode. That's
the whole point - trying to grab references to a bunch of dentries/mounts,
so that we could continue in non-RCU mode from that point on. What should
we do if we'd grabbed some of those references, but failed halfway through
the stack?
We *can't* do path_put() there - not under rcu_read_lock(). And we can't
delay dropping the link bodies past rcu_read_unlock().
Note that this state has
nd->depth link bodies in stack, all need to be droped before
rcu_read_unlock()
first K link references in stack that need to be dropped after
rcu_read_unlock()
nd->depth - K link references in stack that do _not_ need to
be dropped.
Solution: have link bodies dropped, callbacks cleared and nd->depth
reset to K. The caller of legitimate_links() immediately drops out
of RCU mode and we proceed to terminate_walk(), same as we would
on an error in non-RCU mode.
This case is on a slow path; we could microoptimize it, but result
would be really harder to understand.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists