On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 09:31:36PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-06-11 at 15:11 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 08:56:18PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2021-06-11 at 14:49 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 10:50, Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Add a revision counter to kernfs directory nodes so it can be
> > > > > used
> > > > > to detect if a directory node has changed during negative
> > > > > dentry
> > > > > revalidation.
> > > > >
> > > > > There's an assumption that sizeof(unsigned long) <=
> > > > > sizeof(pointer)
> > > > > on all architectures and as far as I know that assumption
> > > > > holds.
> > > > >
> > > > > So adding a revision counter to the struct kernfs_elem_dir
> > > > > variant
> > > > > of
> > > > > the kernfs_node type union won't increase the size of the
> > > > > kernfs_node
> > > > > struct. This is because struct kernfs_elem_dir is at least
> > > > > sizeof(pointer) smaller than the largest union variant. It's
> > > > > tempting
> > > > > to make the revision counter a u64 but that would increase the
> > > > > size
> > > > > of
> > > > > kernfs_node on archs where sizeof(pointer) is smaller than the
> > > > > revision
> > > > > counter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > fs/kernfs/dir.c | 2 ++
> > > > > fs/kernfs/kernfs-internal.h | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > include/linux/kernfs.h | 5 +++++
> > > > > 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/kernfs/dir.c b/fs/kernfs/dir.c
> > > > > index 33166ec90a112..b3d1bc0f317d0 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/kernfs/dir.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/kernfs/dir.c
> > > > > @@ -372,6 +372,7 @@ static int kernfs_link_sibling(struct
> > > > > kernfs_node *kn)
> > > > > /* successfully added, account subdir number */
> > > > > if (kernfs_type(kn) == KERNFS_DIR)
> > > > > kn->parent->dir.subdirs++;
> > > > > + kernfs_inc_rev(kn->parent);
> > > > >
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > > }
> > > > > @@ -394,6 +395,7 @@ static bool kernfs_unlink_sibling(struct
> > > > > kernfs_node *kn)
> > > > >
> > > > > if (kernfs_type(kn) == KERNFS_DIR)
> > > > > kn->parent->dir.subdirs--;
> > > > > + kernfs_inc_rev(kn->parent);
> > > > >
> > > > > rb_erase(&kn->rb, &kn->parent->dir.children);
> > > > > RB_CLEAR_NODE(&kn->rb);
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/kernfs/kernfs-internal.h b/fs/kernfs/kernfs-
> > > > > internal.h
> > > > > index ccc3b44f6306f..b4e7579e04799 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/kernfs/kernfs-internal.h
> > > > > +++ b/fs/kernfs/kernfs-internal.h
> > > > > @@ -81,6 +81,29 @@ static inline struct kernfs_node
> > > > > *kernfs_dentry_node(struct dentry *dentry)
> > > > > return d_inode(dentry)->i_private;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static inline void kernfs_set_rev(struct kernfs_node *kn,
> > > > > + struct dentry *dentry)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + if (kernfs_type(kn) == KERNFS_DIR)
> > > > > + dentry->d_time = kn->dir.rev;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static inline void kernfs_inc_rev(struct kernfs_node *kn)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + if (kernfs_type(kn) == KERNFS_DIR)
> > > > > + kn->dir.rev++;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static inline bool kernfs_dir_changed(struct kernfs_node *kn,
> > > > > + struct dentry *dentry)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + if (kernfs_type(kn) == KERNFS_DIR) {
> > > >
> > > > Aren't these always be called on a KERNFS_DIR node?
> > >
> > > Yes they are.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You could just reduce that to a WARN_ON, or remove the conditions
> > > > altogether then.
> > >
> > > I was tempted to not use the check, a WARN_ON sounds better than
> > > removing the check, I'll do that in a v7.
> >
> > No, WARN_ON is not ok, as systems will crash if panic-on-warn is set.
>
> Thanks Greg, understood.
>
> >
> > If these are impossible to hit, great, let's not check this and we
> > can
> > just drop the code. If they can be hit, then the above code is
> > correct
> > and it should stay.
>
> It's a programming mistake to call these on a non-directory node.
>
> I can remove the check but do you think there's any value in passing
> the node and updating it's parent to avoid possible misuse?
I do not understand the question here, sorry. It's a static function,
you control the callers, who can "misuse" it?
thanks,
greg k-h
