On 3/7/25 9:25 AM, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 5:18?PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> +static inline void makeatomicname(struct filename *name)
>>> +{
>>> + VFS_BUG_ON(IS_ERR_OR_NULL(name));
>>> + /*
>>> + * The name can legitimately already be atomic if it was cached by audit.
>>> + * If switching the refcount to atomic, we need not to know we are the
>>> + * only non-atomic user.
>>> + */
>>> + VFS_BUG_ON(name->owner != current && !name->is_atomic);
>>> + /*
>>> + * Don't bother branching, this is a store to an already dirtied cacheline.
>>> + */
>>> + name->is_atomic = true;
>>> +}
>>
>> Should this not depend on audit being enabled? io_uring without audit is
>> fine.
>>
>
> I thought about it, but then I got worried about transitions from
> disabled to enabled -- will they suddenly start looking here? Should
> this test for audit_enabled, audit_dummy_context() or something else?
> I did not want to bother analyzing this.
Let me take a look at it, the markings for when to switch atomic are not
accurate - it only really needs to happen for offload situations only,
and if audit is enabled and tracking. So I think we can great improve
upon this patch.
> I'll note though this would be an optimization on top of the current
> code, so I don't think it *blocks* the patch.
Let's not go with something half-done if we can get it right the first
time.
--
Jens Axboe
