Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 01:22:41AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> In my last round of patches that I sent out today. I did put mount_lock
>> just outside of rename_lock, in d_splice_alias. But apparently you
>> haven't noticed.
>
> I have. The problem I have with that one is that you end up with duplicated
> logics rather than taking it to one place.
We are talking about a very small duplication of code. But you are also
talking about combining logic that can get you in trouble pretty easily.
As I read the code sketch you posted it had the issue that if a
disconnected dentry was also a mount point it would mark that mount
point as escaped (because there was no common ancestor).
In the split out logic I don't even bother because you trivially can't
have escaped from anywhere when IS_ROOT(dentry).
>> Now at this point I have hit the limit of my time available for rewrites
>> before the merge window. We can go with my 7 patch variant I posted
>> today (whose only sin appears not to be your implemenation), it's
>> trivial reduction that Linus likes because it is simple, someone else
>> can write one, or this can all wait until the next development cycle.
>
> ... or either of us can do merging those checks into a single place,
> be it as a followup to your 7-patch series, or folded with the
> fs/dcache.c-affecting patches in there. If you have no time left, I can
> certainly do that followup myself - not a problem[1]
I don't have time. Everytime I have worked with this it has take pretty
much full days of staring at the code, and I don't have any more full
days left before the merge window.
> And umount-related followups are just that - I'm not asking you to do those,
> especially since as I said this stuff is sensitive to fs_pin details (so far
> it appears to fold nicely with the __detach_mounts()/umount_tree() stuff,
> BTW).
>
> PS: it doesn't need namespace_sem taken inside __d_move() - actual
> detaching does, of course, but that part gets done via task_work_add(),
> in a reasonably sane locking environment.
The part that boggles my mind about that whole approach is that just
outside of rename_lock there already is a sane locking environment.
Admittedly it will take a touch of work in d_splice_alias to get it
sane, but that isn't particularly hard.
write_seqlock(&rename_lock);
if (!IS_ROOT(new))
__d_unalias(...);
__d_unalias(...)
{
/* Parent's don't go away so !IS_ROOT(new) will stay valid */
write_sequnlock(&rename_lock);
/* Hooray! The code can be normal and sleep if it needs to,
* before calling into __d_move.
*/
...
d_move();
}
Similarly for duplicate logic removal. Teaching d_splice_alias when
it is performing an ordinarly rename to be able to just call d_move
gets you far more from a maintenance perspective than cramming
everything into __d_move.
> [1] with credits for your patches preserved - normally I would assume that
> this goes without saying, but your reply seems to imply that I'm playing some
> kind of political BS games, so I'd rather spell that out.
My issue wasn't political games, but rather holding code to an
apparently BS standard.
Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
