Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 06/10] lib/buildid: implement sleepable build_id_parse() API

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 10:16 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 11:40 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 04:40:25PM GMT, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > Extend freader with a flag specifying whether it's OK to cause page
> > > fault to fetch file data that is not already physically present in
> > > memory. With this, it's now easy to wait for data if the caller is
> > > running in sleepable (faultable) context.
> > >
> > > We utilize read_cache_folio() to bring the desired folio into page
> > > cache, after which the rest of the logic works just the same at folio level.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@xxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  lib/buildid.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > >  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/buildid.c b/lib/buildid.c
> > > index 5e6f842f56f0..e1c01b23efd8 100644
> > > --- a/lib/buildid.c
> > > +++ b/lib/buildid.c
> > > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ struct freader {
> > >                       struct folio *folio;
> > >                       void *addr;
> > >                       loff_t folio_off;
> > > +                     bool may_fault;
> > >               };
> > >               struct {
> > >                       const char *data;
> > > @@ -29,12 +30,13 @@ struct freader {
> > >  };
> > >
> > >  static void freader_init_from_file(struct freader *r, void *buf, u32 buf_sz,
> > > -                                struct address_space *mapping)
> > > +                                struct address_space *mapping, bool may_fault)
> > >  {
> > >       memset(r, 0, sizeof(*r));
> > >       r->buf = buf;
> > >       r->buf_sz = buf_sz;
> > >       r->mapping = mapping;
> > > +     r->may_fault = may_fault;
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  static void freader_init_from_mem(struct freader *r, const char *data, u64 data_sz)
> > > @@ -63,6 +65,11 @@ static int freader_get_folio(struct freader *r, loff_t file_off)
> > >       freader_put_folio(r);
> > >
> > >       r->folio = filemap_get_folio(r->mapping, file_off >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> > > +
> > > +     /* if sleeping is allowed, wait for the page, if necessary */
> > > +     if (r->may_fault && (IS_ERR(r->folio) || !folio_test_uptodate(r->folio)))
> > > +             r->folio = read_cache_folio(r->mapping, file_off >> PAGE_SHIFT, NULL, NULL);
> >
> > Willy's network fs comment is bugging me. If we pass NULL for filler,
> > the kernel will going to use fs's read_folio() callback. I have checked
> > read_folio() for fuse and nfs and it seems like for at least these two
> > filesystems the callback is accessing file->private_data. So, if the elf
> > file is on these filesystems, we might see null accesses.
> >
>
> Isn't that just a huge problem with the read_cache_folio() interface
> then? That file is optional, in general, but for some specific FS
> types it's not. How generic code is supposed to know this?

I think you have to think about it the other way around. The file is
required, unless you know the filler function that will be used
doesn't use the file. Which you don't know when you're coming from
generic code, so generic code has to pass in a file.

As far as I can tell, most of the callers of read_cache_folio() (via
read_mapping_folio()) are inside filesystem implementations, not
generic code, so they know what the filler function will do. You're
generic code, so I think you have to pass in a file.

> Or maybe it's a bug with the nfs_read_folio() and fuse_read_folio()
> implementation that they can't handle NULL file argument?
> netfs_read_folio(), for example, seems to be working with file == NULL
> just fine.
>
> Matthew, can you please advise what's the right approach here? I can,
> of course, always get file refcount, but most of the time it will be
> just an unnecessary overhead, so ideally I'd like to avoid that. But
> if I have to check each read_folio callback implementation to know
> whether it's required or not, then that's not great...

Why would you need to increment the file refcount? As far as I can
tell, all your accesses to the file would happen under
__build_id_parse(), which is borrowing the refcounted reference from
vma->vm_file; the file can't go away as long as your caller is holding
the mmap lock.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux