[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251217112345.2340007-1-mjguzik@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 12:23:45 +0100
From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
To: brauner@...nel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Cc: jack@...e.cz,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
clm@...a.com,
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH v2] fs: touch up symlink clean up in lookup
Provide links_cleanup_rcu() and links_cleanup_ref() for rcu- and ref-
walks respectively.
The somewhat misleading drop_links() gets renamed to links_issue_delayed_calls(),
which spells out what it is actually doing.
There are no changes in behavior, this however should be less
error-prone going forward.
Signed-off-by: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
---
fs/namei.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
v2:
- remove the mindless copy-paste in links_cleanup_ref, instead only move
path_puts on the symlinks
this performs path_put on nd->path later, which should not be a material
difference.
this assumes the LOOKUP_CACHED fixup is applied:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20251217104854.GU1712166@ZenIV/T/#mff14d1dd88729f40fa94ada8beaa64e0c41097ff
technically the 2 patches could be combined, but I did not want to do it
given the bug
Chris, can you feed this thing into the magic llm? Better yet, is it
something I can use myself? I passed the known buggy patch to gcc
-fanalyze and clang --analyze and neither managed to point out any
issues.
diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
index 69d0aa9ad2a8..7d1722cebe99 100644
--- a/fs/namei.c
+++ b/fs/namei.c
@@ -766,7 +766,7 @@ static bool path_connected(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct dentry *dentry)
return is_subdir(dentry, mnt->mnt_root);
}
-static void drop_links(struct nameidata *nd)
+static void links_issue_delayed_calls(struct nameidata *nd)
{
int i = nd->depth;
while (i--) {
@@ -774,6 +774,29 @@ static void drop_links(struct nameidata *nd)
do_delayed_call(&last->done);
clear_delayed_call(&last->done);
}
+}
+
+static void links_cleanup_rcu(struct nameidata *nd)
+{
+ VFS_BUG_ON(!(nd->flags & LOOKUP_RCU));
+
+ if (likely(!nd->depth))
+ return;
+
+ links_issue_delayed_calls(nd);
+ nd->depth = 0;
+}
+
+static void links_cleanup_ref(struct nameidata *nd)
+{
+ VFS_BUG_ON(nd->flags & LOOKUP_RCU);
+
+ if (likely(!nd->depth))
+ return;
+
+ links_issue_delayed_calls(nd);
+ for (int i = 0; i < nd->depth; i++)
+ path_put(&nd->stack[i].link);
nd->depth = 0;
}
@@ -786,20 +809,16 @@ static void leave_rcu(struct nameidata *nd)
static void terminate_walk(struct nameidata *nd)
{
- int depth = nd->depth;
- if (unlikely(depth))
- drop_links(nd);
- if (!(nd->flags & LOOKUP_RCU)) {
- int i;
+ if (nd->flags & LOOKUP_RCU) {
+ links_cleanup_rcu(nd);
+ leave_rcu(nd);
+ } else {
+ links_cleanup_ref(nd);
path_put(&nd->path);
- for (i = 0; i < depth; i++)
- path_put(&nd->stack[i].link);
if (nd->state & ND_ROOT_GRABBED) {
path_put(&nd->root);
nd->state &= ~ND_ROOT_GRABBED;
}
- } else {
- leave_rcu(nd);
}
VFS_BUG_ON(nd->depth);
nd->path.mnt = NULL;
@@ -838,7 +857,7 @@ static bool legitimize_links(struct nameidata *nd)
for (i = 0; i < nd->depth; i++) {
struct saved *last = nd->stack + i;
if (unlikely(!legitimize_path(nd, &last->link, last->seq))) {
- drop_links(nd);
+ links_issue_delayed_calls(nd);
nd->depth = i + 1;
return false;
}
@@ -884,7 +903,7 @@ static bool try_to_unlazy(struct nameidata *nd)
BUG_ON(!(nd->flags & LOOKUP_RCU));
if (unlikely(nd->flags & LOOKUP_CACHED)) {
- drop_links(nd);
+ links_cleanup_rcu(nd);
goto out1;
}
if (unlikely(nd->depth && !legitimize_links(nd)))
@@ -923,7 +942,7 @@ static bool try_to_unlazy_next(struct nameidata *nd, struct dentry *dentry)
BUG_ON(!(nd->flags & LOOKUP_RCU));
if (unlikely(nd->flags & LOOKUP_CACHED)) {
- drop_links(nd);
+ links_cleanup_rcu(nd);
goto out2;
}
if (unlikely(nd->depth && !legitimize_links(nd)))
--
2.48.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists