Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] errseq: Add mechanism to snapshot errseq_counter and check snapshot

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

 



Forgot to CC Jeff?

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 1:50 AM Sargun Dhillon <sargun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This adds the function errseq_counter_sample to allow for "subscribers"
> to take point-in-time snapshots of the errseq_counter, and store the
> counter + errseq_t.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  include/linux/errseq.h |  4 ++++
>  lib/errseq.c           | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 55 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/errseq.h b/include/linux/errseq.h
> index 35818c484290..8998df499a3b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/errseq.h
> +++ b/include/linux/errseq.h
> @@ -25,4 +25,8 @@ errseq_t errseq_set(errseq_t *eseq, int err);
>  errseq_t errseq_sample(errseq_t *eseq);
>  int errseq_check(errseq_t *eseq, errseq_t since);
>  int errseq_check_and_advance(errseq_t *eseq, errseq_t *since);
> +void errseq_counter_sample(errseq_t *dst_errseq, int *dst_errors,
> +                          struct errseq_counter *counter);
> +int errseq_counter_check(struct errseq_counter *counter, errseq_t errseq_since,
> +                        int errors_since);
>  #endif
> diff --git a/lib/errseq.c b/lib/errseq.c
> index d555e7fc18d2..98fcfafa3d97 100644
> --- a/lib/errseq.c
> +++ b/lib/errseq.c
> @@ -246,3 +246,54 @@ int errseq_check_and_advance(errseq_t *eseq, errseq_t *since)
>         return err;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(errseq_check_and_advance);
> +
> +/**
> + * errseq_counter_sample() - Grab the current errseq_counter value
> + * @dst_errseq: The errseq_t to copy to
> + * @dst_errors: The destination overflow to copy to
> + * @counter: The errseq_counter to copy from
> + *
> + * Grabs a point in time sample of the errseq_counter for latter comparison
> + */
> +void errseq_counter_sample(errseq_t *dst_errseq, int *dst_errors,

Why 2 arguments and not struct errseq_counter *dst_counter?

> +                          struct errseq_counter *counter)
> +{
> +       errseq_t cur;
> +
> +       do {
> +               cur = READ_ONCE(counter->errseq);
> +               *dst_errors = atomic_read(&counter->errors);
> +       } while (cur != READ_ONCE(counter->errseq));

This loop seems odd. I think the return value should reflect the fact that
the snapshot failed and let the caller decide if it wants to loop.

And about the one and only introduced caller, I think the answer is that
it shouldn't loop. If volatile overlayfs mount tries to sample the upper sb
error counter and an unseen error exists, I argued before that I think
mount should fail, so that the container orchestrator can decide what to do.
Failure to take an errseq_counter sample means than an unseen error
has been observed at least in the first or second check.

> +
> +       /* Clear the seen bit to make checking later easier */
> +       *dst_errseq = cur & ~ERRSEQ_SEEN;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(errseq_counter_sample);
> +
> +/**
> + * errseq_counter_check() - Has an error occurred since the sample
> + * @counter: The errseq_counter from which to check.
> + * @errseq_since: The errseq_t sampled with errseq_counter_sample to check
> + * @errors_since: The errors sampled with errseq_counter_sample to check
> + *
> + * Returns: The latest error set in the errseq_t or 0 if there have been none.
> + */
> +int errseq_counter_check(struct errseq_counter *counter, errseq_t errseq_since,
> +                        int errors_since)
> +{
> +       errseq_t cur_errseq;
> +       int cur_errors;
> +
> +       cur_errors = atomic_read(&counter->errors);
> +       /* To match the barrier in errseq_counter_set */
> +       smp_rmb();
> +
> +       /* Clear / ignore the seen bit as we do at sample time */
> +       cur_errseq = READ_ONCE(counter->errseq) & ~ERRSEQ_SEEN;
> +
> +       if (cur_errseq == errseq_since && errors_since == cur_errors)
> +               return 0;
> +
> +       return -(cur_errseq & MAX_ERRNO);
> +}


Same here. Why not pass an errseq_counter_since argument?

Thanks,
Amir.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux