On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 08:10:31PM +0100, Andrey Albershteyn wrote:
> For XFS, fsverity's global workqueue is not really suitable due to:
>
> 1. High priority workqueues are used within XFS to ensure that data
> IO completion cannot stall processing of journal IO completions.
> Hence using a WQ_HIGHPRI workqueue directly in the user data IO
> path is a potential filesystem livelock/deadlock vector.
>
> 2. The fsverity workqueue is global - it creates a cross-filesystem
> contention point.
>
> This patch adds per-filesystem, per-cpu workqueue for fsverity
> work. This allows iomap to add verification work in the read path on
> BIO completion.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Albershteyn <aalbersh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Should ext4 and f2fs switch over to this by converting
fsverity_enqueue_verify_work() to use it? I'd prefer not to have to maintain
two separate workqueue strategies as part of the fs/verity/ infrastructure.
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index 1fbc72c5f112..5863519ffd51 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -1223,6 +1223,8 @@ struct super_block {
> #endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_FS_VERITY
> const struct fsverity_operations *s_vop;
> + /* Completion queue for post read verification */
> + struct workqueue_struct *s_read_done_wq;
> #endif
Maybe s_verity_wq? Or do you anticipate this being used for other purposes too,
such as fscrypt? Note that it's behind CONFIG_FS_VERITY and is allocated by an
fsverity_* function, so at least at the moment it doesn't feel very generic.
> diff --git a/include/linux/fsverity.h b/include/linux/fsverity.h
> index 0973b521ac5a..45b7c613148a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fsverity.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fsverity.h
> @@ -241,6 +241,22 @@ void fsverity_enqueue_verify_work(struct work_struct *work);
> void fsverity_invalidate_block(struct inode *inode,
> struct fsverity_blockbuf *block);
>
> +static inline int fsverity_set_ops(struct super_block *sb,
> + const struct fsverity_operations *ops)
This doesn't just set the ops, but also allocates a workqueue too. A better
name for this function might be fsverity_init_sb.
Also this shouldn't really be an inline function.
> +{
> + sb->s_vop = ops;
> +
> + /* Create per-sb workqueue for post read bio verification */
> + struct workqueue_struct *wq = alloc_workqueue(
> + "pread/%s", (WQ_FREEZABLE | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM), 0, sb->s_id);
"pread" is short for "post read", I guess? Should it really be this generic?
> +static inline int fsverity_set_ops(struct super_block *sb,
> + const struct fsverity_operations *ops)
> +{
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +}
I think it would be better to just not have a !CONFIG_FS_VERITY stub for this.
You *could* make it work like fscrypt_set_ops(), which the ubifs folks added,
where it can be called unconditionally if the filesystem has a declaration for
the operations (but not necessarily a definition). In that case it would need
to return 0, rather than an error. But I think I prefer just omitting the stub
and having filesystems guard the call to this by CONFIG_FS_VERITY, as you've
already done in XFS.
- Eric
