From: Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] kernfs: make ->attr.open RCU protected.
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 09:12:23 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f5ff2554-580c-c817-b77f-25e2ef46411f@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YnQtL7+GYHwpo4n2@slm.duckdns.org>
Hello Tejun,
Thank you for reviewing this.
On 6/5/22 6:01 am, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 03:54:28PM +1000, Imran Khan wrote:
>> +static struct kernfs_open_node *kernfs_deref_on_raw(struct kernfs_node *kn)
>> +{
>> + return rcu_dereference_raw(kn->attr.open);
>> +}
>
> Wrapping the above probably isn't helping anything.
>
This change is using raw deref at a few places, so I thought of putting
raw deref under a wrapper and explain in the wrapper function comment
under what conditions raw dereferencing was safe.
>> +/*
>> + * Check ->attr.open corresponding to @kn while holding kernfs_open_file_mutex.
>> + * ->attr.open is modified under kernfs_open_file_mutex. So it can be safely
>> + * accessed outside RCU read-side critical section, while holding the mutex.
>> + */
>> +static struct kernfs_open_node *kernfs_check_on_protected(struct kernfs_node *kn)
>> +{
>> + return rcu_dereference_check(kn->attr.open,
>> + lockdep_is_held(&kernfs_open_file_mutex));
>> +}
>
> Maybe name this just kernfs_deref_on()?
>
Sure. I can mention in the function comment that this should be used
only under kernfs_open_file_mutex.
>> @@ -156,8 +188,9 @@ static void kernfs_seq_stop(struct seq_file *sf, void *v)
>> static int kernfs_seq_show(struct seq_file *sf, void *v)
>> {
>> struct kernfs_open_file *of = sf->private;
>> + struct kernfs_open_node *on = kernfs_deref_on_raw(of->kn);
>
> I suppose this is protected by the fact that @of is on @on?
Yes.
> If so, just add
> the condition to the checked version. The condition doesn't have to be
> perfect - e.g. you can just say that neither @on's and @of's list_head isn't
> empty. While not comprehensive, it'd still provide meaningful protection
> against mistakes and be easier to understand if the deref accessor clearly
> explains the expectations.
>
Sure. Could you please let me know if below modification looks good ?
diff --git a/fs/kernfs/file.c b/fs/kernfs/file.c
index 946a4a8d7e32..a12d5067f8d5 100644
--- a/fs/kernfs/file.c
+++ b/fs/kernfs/file.c
@@ -56,12 +56,23 @@ static inline struct mutex
*kernfs_open_file_mutex_lock(struct kernfs_node *kn)
/*
* Raw deref RCU protected kn->attr.open.
- * The caller guarantees that @on will not vanish in the middle of this
- * function and hence we can deref ->attr.open raw.
+ * If both @of->list and @kn->attr.open->files are non empty, we can safely
+ * assume that @of is on @kn->attr.open and hence @kn->attr.open will
not vanish
+ * and raw derefeencing is safe here.
*/
-static struct kernfs_open_node *kernfs_deref_on_raw(struct kernfs_node *kn)
+static struct kernfs_open_node *kernfs_deref_on_raw(struct
kernfs_open_file *of, struct kernfs_node *kn)
{
- return rcu_dereference_raw(kn->attr.open);
+ struct kernfs_open_node *on;
+
+ if (list_empty(&of->list))
+ return NULL;
+
+ on = rcu_dereference_raw(kn->attr.open);
+
+ if (list_empty(&on->files))
+ return NULL;
+ else
+ return on;
}
/*
@@ -191,7 +202,10 @@ static void kernfs_seq_stop(struct seq_file *sf,
void *v)
static int kernfs_seq_show(struct seq_file *sf, void *v)
{
struct kernfs_open_file *of = sf->private;
- struct kernfs_open_node *on = kernfs_deref_on_raw(of->kn);
+ struct kernfs_open_node *on = kernfs_deref_on_raw(of, of->kn);
+
+ if(!on)
+ return -EINVAL;
of->event = atomic_read(&unrcu_pointer(on)->event);
@@ -238,7 +252,10 @@ static ssize_t kernfs_file_read_iter(struct kiocb
*iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
goto out_free;
}
- on = kernfs_deref_on_raw(of->kn);
+ on = kernfs_deref_on_raw(of, of->kn);
+ if(!on)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
of->event = atomic_read(&unrcu_pointer(on)->event);
ops = kernfs_ops(of->kn);
if (ops->read)
@@ -850,7 +867,10 @@ void kernfs_drain_open_files(struct kernfs_node *kn)
__poll_t kernfs_generic_poll(struct kernfs_open_file *of, poll_table *wait)
{
struct kernfs_node *kn =
kernfs_dentry_node(of->file->f_path.dentry);
- struct kernfs_open_node *on = kernfs_deref_on_raw(kn);
+ struct kernfs_open_node *on = kernfs_deref_on_raw(of, kn);
+
+ if (!on)
+ return EPOLLERR;
poll_wait(of->file, &on->poll, wait);
>> @@ -201,7 +235,8 @@ static ssize_t kernfs_file_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
>> goto out_free;
[...]
>> @@ -922,13 +950,13 @@ void kernfs_notify(struct kernfs_node *kn)
>> return;
>>
>> /* kick poll immediately */
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(&kernfs_open_node_lock, flags);
>> - on = kn->attr.open;
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + on = rcu_dereference(kn->attr.open);
>
> Shouldn't this be kernfs_deref_on() too?
>
kernfs_notify can be invoked w/o holding kernfs_open_file_mutex (e.g.
cgroup_file_notify). So we have explicit RCU read-side critical section
here and hence just rcu_dereference.
Thanks
-- Imran
> Thanks.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-05 23:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-28 5:54 [PATCH 0/5] kernfs: Remove reference counting for kernfs_open_node Imran Khan
2022-04-28 5:54 ` [PATCH 1/5] " Imran Khan
2022-05-05 19:46 ` Tejun Heo
2022-04-28 5:54 ` [PATCH 2/5] kernfs: make ->attr.open RCU protected Imran Khan
2022-05-05 20:01 ` Tejun Heo
2022-05-05 23:12 ` Imran Khan [this message]
2022-05-12 17:09 ` Tejun Heo
2022-05-15 16:00 ` Imran Khan
2022-05-16 19:35 ` Tejun Heo
2022-05-17 2:30 ` Imran Khan
2022-05-17 4:21 ` Tejun Heo
2022-04-28 5:54 ` [PATCH 3/5] kernfs: Change kernfs_notify_list to llist Imran Khan
2022-05-05 20:03 ` Tejun Heo
2022-04-28 5:54 ` [PATCH 4/5] kernfs: Introduce interface to access global kernfs_open_file_mutex Imran Khan
2022-05-05 20:04 ` Tejun Heo
2022-04-28 5:54 ` [PATCH 5/5] kernfs: Replace global kernfs_open_file_mutex with hashed mutexes Imran Khan
2022-05-05 20:05 ` Tejun Heo
2022-05-11 9:58 ` Imran Khan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=f5ff2554-580c-c817-b77f-25e2ef46411f@oracle.com \
--to=imran.f.khan@oracle.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®