On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 09:59:27AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> Coming back to this now, just trying to review the
> filehandle-lookup/dcache interactions:
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 03:07:49PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > 1/ Originally DCACHE_DISCONNECTED didn't really mean much - it's presence
> > was only a hint, its absence was a strong statement.
> > If the flag is set, the dentry might not be linked to the root.
> > If it is clear, it definitely is link through to the root.
> > However I think it was used with stronger intent than that.
> >
> > Now it seems to mean a little bit more: If it is set and the dentry
> > is hashed, then it must be on the sb->s_anon list.
>
> The code that makes that assumption is __d_shrink (which does the work
> of d_drop)--it uses DCACHE_DISCONECTED to decide which hash chain to
> lock.
>
> I can't find any basis for that assumption. The only code that clears
> DCACHE_DISCONNECTED is in expfs.c, and it isn't done at the same time as
> hashing. Am I missing something?
>
> > This is a significant
> > which I never noticed (I haven't been watching). Originally a
> > disconnected dentry would be attached (and hashed) to its parent. Then
> > that parent would get its own parent and so on until it was attached all
> > the way to the root. Only then would be start clearing
> > DCACHE_DISCONNECTED. It seems we must clear it sooner now... I wonder if
> > that is correct.
>
> It looks wrong to me:
>
> If we clear DCACHE_DISCONNECTED too early, then we risk a filehandle
> lookup thinking the dentry is OK to use. That could mean for example
> trying to rename across directories that don't have any ancestor
> relationship to each other in the dcache yet.
>
> So we need to wait to clear DCACHE_DISCONNECTED until we *know* the
> dentry's parents go all the way back to the root. As you say, that's
> what the current code does.
>
> But that means DCACHE_DISCONNECTED dentries can be hashed to their
> parents, and __d_shrink can be handed such dentries and then get the
> locking wrong.
>
> It looks like this bug might originate with Nick Piggin's ceb5bdc2d246
> "fs: dcache per-bucket dcache hash locking"? There's no discussion in
> the changelog, so probably it was just based on an unexamined assumption
> about DCACHE_DISCONNECTED.
>
> I wonder if an IS_ROOT() test could replace the DCACHE_DISCONNECTED test
> in __d_shrink(), or if we need another flag, or ?
Bah, sorry, and I only just noticed that you already said as much later
and did the IS_ROOT() thing in your patch.
Anyway, here's just that one change with a slightly more painstaking
changelog.
--b.
commit b1fa644355122627424fe2240a9fc60cbef4c349
Author: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu Jun 28 12:10:55 2012 -0400
dcache: use IS_ROOT to decide where dentry is hashed
Every hashed dentry is either hashed in the dentry_hashtable, or a
superblock's s_anon list.
__d_shrink assumes it can determine which is the case by checking
DCACHE_DISCONNECTED; this is not true.
It is true that when DCACHE_DISCONNECTED is cleared, the dentry is not
only hashed on dentry_hashtable, but is fully connected to its parents
back to the root.
But the converse is *not* true: fs/exportfs/expfs.c:reconnect_path()
attempts to connect a directory (found by filehandle lookup) back to
root by ascending to parents and performing lookups one at a time. It
does not clear DCACHE_DISCONNECTED until its done, and that is not at
all an atomic process.
In particular, it is possible for DCACHE_DISCONNECTED to be set on a
dentry which is hashed on the dentry_hashtable.
Instead, use IS_ROOT() to check which hash chain a dentry is on. This
*does* work:
Dentries are hashed only by:
- d_obtain_alias, which adds an IS_ROOT() dentry to sb_anon.
- __d_rehash, called by _d_rehash: hashes to the dentry's
parent, and all callers of _d_rehash appear to have d_parent
set to a "real" parent.
- __d_rehash, called by __d_move: rehashes the moved dentry to
hash chain determined by target, and assigns target's d_parent
to its d_parent, before dropping the dentry's d_lock.
Therefore I believe it's safe for a holder of a dentry's d_lock to
assume that it is hashed on sb_anon if and only if IS_ROOT(dentry) is
true.
I believe the incorrect assumption about DCACHE_DISCONNECTED was
originally introduced by ceb5bdc2d246 "fs: dcache per-bucket dcache hash
locking".
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
index 87c2da7..b2b382c 100644
--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
@@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ static void __d_shrink(struct dentry *dentry)
{
if (!d_unhashed(dentry)) {
struct hlist_bl_head *b;
- if (unlikely(dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_DISCONNECTED))
+ if (unlikely(IS_ROOT(dentry->d_flags)))
b = &dentry->d_sb->s_anon;
else
b = d_hash(dentry->d_parent, dentry->d_name.hash);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
