On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 12:00:08PM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote: > * Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> [240215 08:16]: > > On Tue 13-02-24 16:38:08, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Liam says that, unlike with xarray, once the RCU read lock is > > > released ma_state is not safe to re-use for the next mas_find() call. > > > But the RCU read lock has to be released on each loop iteration so > > > that dput() can be called safely. > > > > > > Thus we are forced to walk the offset tree with fresh state for each > > > directory entry. mt_find() can do this for us, though it might be a > > > little less efficient than maintaining ma_state locally. > > > > > > Since offset_iterate_dir() doesn't build ma_state locally any more, > > > there's no longer a strong need for offset_find_next(). Clean up by > > > rolling these two helpers together. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Well, in general I think even xas_next_entry() is not safe to use how > > offset_find_next() was using it. Once you drop rcu_read_lock(), > > xas->xa_node could go stale. But since you're holding inode->i_rwsem when > > using offset_find_next() you should be protected from concurrent > > modifications of the mapping (whatever the underlying data structure is) - > > that's what makes xas_next_entry() safe AFAIU. Isn't that enough for the > > maple tree? Am I missing something? > > If you are stopping, you should be pausing the iteration. Although this > works today, it's not how it should be used because if we make changes > (ie: compaction requires movement of data), then you may end up with a > UAF issue. We'd have no way of knowing you are depending on the tree > structure to remain consistent. > > IOW the inode->i_rwsem is protecting writes of data but not the > structure holding the data. > > This is true for both xarray and maple tree. Would it be appropriate to reorder this series so 7/7 comes before the transition to use Maple Tree? -- Chuck Lever
