On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 5:32 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 3/7/25 9:25 AM, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 5:18?PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +static inline void makeatomicname(struct filename *name)
> >>> +{
> >>> + VFS_BUG_ON(IS_ERR_OR_NULL(name));
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * The name can legitimately already be atomic if it was cached by audit.
> >>> + * If switching the refcount to atomic, we need not to know we are the
> >>> + * only non-atomic user.
> >>> + */
> >>> + VFS_BUG_ON(name->owner != current && !name->is_atomic);
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Don't bother branching, this is a store to an already dirtied cacheline.
> >>> + */
> >>> + name->is_atomic = true;
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> Should this not depend on audit being enabled? io_uring without audit is
> >> fine.
> >>
> >
> > I thought about it, but then I got worried about transitions from
> > disabled to enabled -- will they suddenly start looking here? Should
> > this test for audit_enabled, audit_dummy_context() or something else?
> > I did not want to bother analyzing this.
>
> Let me take a look at it, the markings for when to switch atomic are not
> accurate - it only really needs to happen for offload situations only,
> and if audit is enabled and tracking. So I think we can great improve
> upon this patch.
>
I aimed for this to be a NOP for io_uring, so to speak, specifically
because I could not be arsed to deal with audit.
> > I'll note though this would be an optimization on top of the current
> > code, so I don't think it *blocks* the patch.
>
> Let's not go with something half-done if we can get it right the first
> time.
>
Since you volunteered to sort this out, I'll be happy to wait.
--
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>
