On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 3:46 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> I have this patch in my tree that I'm thinking about submitting:
>
> +static inline void inode_assert_locked(const struct inode *inode)
> +{
> + rwsem_assert_held(&inode->i_rwsem);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void inode_assert_locked_excl(const struct inode *inode)
> +{
> + rwsem_assert_held_write(&inode->i_rwsem);
> +}
>
> Then we can do a whole bunch of "replace crappy existing assertions with
> the shiny new ones".
>
> @@ -2746,7 +2746,7 @@ struct dentry *lookup_one_len(const char *name, struct den
> try *base, int len)
> struct qstr this;
> int err;
>
> - WARN_ON_ONCE(!inode_is_locked(base->d_inode));
> + inode_assert_locked(base->d_inode);
>
> for example.
>
> But the naming is confusing and I can't think of good names.
>
> inode_lock() takes the lock exclusively, whereas inode_assert_locked()
> only checks that the lock is held. ie 1-3 pass and 4 fails.
>
> 1. inode_lock(inode); inode_assert_locked(inode);
> 2. inode_lock_shared(inode); inode_assert_locked(inode);
> 3. inode_lock(inode); inode_assert_locked_excl(inode);
> 4. inode_lock_shared(inode); inode_assert_locked_excl(inode);
>
> I worry that this abstraction will cause people to write
> inode_assert_locked() when they really need to check
> inode_assert_locked_excl(). We already had/have this problem:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230831101824.qdko4daizgh7phav@f/
>
> So how do we make it that people write the right one?
> Renaming inode_assert_locked() to inode_assert_locked_shared() isn't
> the answer because it checks that the lock is _at least_ shared, it
> might be held exclusively.
>
> Rename inode_assert_locked() to inode_assert_held()? That might be
> enough of a disconnect that people would not make bad assumptions.
> I don't have a good answer here, or I'd send a patch to do that.
> Please suggest something ;-)
>
Damn, human engineering is hard...
I think that using inode_assert_held() would help a bit, but people may
still use it after inode_lock().
How about always being explicit?
static inline void inode_assert_locked(const struct inode *inode, bool excl)
{
if (excl)
rwsem_assert_held_write(&inode->i_rwsem);
else
rwsem_assert_held(&inode->i_rwsem);
}
and change inode_is_locked() to also be explicit while at it, to nudge
replacing all the existing weak assertion with inode_assert_locked().
Thanks,
Amir.
