On Tue, 28 May 2024, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2024-05-27 at 13:04 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > > > dentry->d_fsdata is set to NFS_FSDATA_BLOCKED while unlinking or > > renaming-over a file to ensure that no open succeeds while the NFS > > operation progressed on the server. > > > > Setting dentry->d_fsdata to NFS_FSDATA_BLOCKED is done under ->d_lock > > after checking the refcount is not elevated. Any attempt to open the > > file (through that name) will go through lookp_open() which will take > > ->d_lock while incrementing the refcount, we can be sure that once > > the > > new value is set, __nfs_lookup_revalidate() *will* see the new value > > and > > will block. > > > > We don't have any locking guarantee that when we set ->d_fsdata to > > NULL, > > the wait_var_event() in __nfs_lookup_revalidate() will notice. > > wait/wake primitives do NOT provide barriers to guarantee order. We > > must use smp_load_acquire() in wait_var_event() to ensure we look at > > an > > up-to-date value, and must use smp_store_release() before > > wake_up_var(). > > > > This patch adds those barrier functions and factors out > > block_revalidate() and unblock_revalidate() far clarity. > > > > There is also a hypothetical bug in that if memory allocation fails > > (which never happens in practice) we might leave ->d_fsdata locked. > > This patch adds the missing call to unblock_revalidate(). > > > > Reported-and-tested-by: Richard Kojedzinszky > > <richard+debian+bugreport@xxxxxxxxx> > > Closes: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1071501 > > Fixes: 3c59366c207e ("NFS: don't unhash dentry during unlink/rename") > > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/nfs/dir.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/dir.c b/fs/nfs/dir.c > > index ac505671efbd..c91dc36d41cc 100644 > > --- a/fs/nfs/dir.c > > +++ b/fs/nfs/dir.c > > @@ -1802,9 +1802,10 @@ __nfs_lookup_revalidate(struct dentry *dentry, > > unsigned int flags, > > if (parent != READ_ONCE(dentry->d_parent)) > > return -ECHILD; > > } else { > > - /* Wait for unlink to complete */ > > + /* Wait for unlink to complete - see > > unblock_revalidate() */ > > wait_var_event(&dentry->d_fsdata, > > - dentry->d_fsdata != > > NFS_FSDATA_BLOCKED); > > + smp_load_acquire(&dentry->d_fsdata) > > + != NFS_FSDATA_BLOCKED); > > Doesn't this end up being a reversed ACQUIRE+RELEASE as described in > the "LOCK ACQUISITION FUNCTIONS" section of Documentation/memory- > barriers.txt? I don't think so. That section is talking about STORE operations which can move backwards through ACQUIRE and forwards through RELEASE. Above we have a LOAD operation which mustn't move backwards through ACQUIRE. Below there is a STORE operation which mustn't move forwards through a RELEASE. Both of those are guaranteed. > > IOW: Shouldn't the above rather be using READ_ONCE()? > > > parent = dget_parent(dentry); > > ret = reval(d_inode(parent), dentry, flags); > > dput(parent); > > @@ -1817,6 +1818,26 @@ static int nfs_lookup_revalidate(struct dentry > > *dentry, unsigned int flags) > > return __nfs_lookup_revalidate(dentry, flags, > > nfs_do_lookup_revalidate); > > } > > > > +static void block_revalidate(struct dentry *dentry) > > +{ > > + /* old devname - just in case */ > > + kfree(dentry->d_fsdata); > > + > > + /* Any new reference that could lead to an open > > + * will take ->d_lock in lookup_open() -> d_lookup(). > > + */ > > + lockdep_assert_held(&dentry->d_lock); > > + > > + dentry->d_fsdata = NULL; > > Why are you doing a barrier free change to dentry->d_fsdata here when > you have the memory barrier protected change in unblock_revalidate()? Ouch. This should be dentry->d_fsdata = NFS_FSDATA_BLOCKED; I messed that up when rearranging the code after testing. This doesn't need a barrier because a spinlock is held. We check the refcount under the spinlock and only proceed if there are no other references. So if __nfs_lookup_revalidate gets called concurrently, it must have got a new reference, and that requires the same spinlock. So if it is called after this assignment, the spinlock will provide all needed barriers. > > > +} > > + > > +static void unblock_revalidate(struct dentry *dentry) > > +{ > > + /* store_release ensures wait_var_event() sees the update */ > > + smp_store_release(&dentry->d_fsdata, NULL); > > Shouldn't this be a WRITE_ONCE(), for the same reason as above? No, for the same reason as above. WRITE_ONCE() doesn't provide any memory barriers, it only avoid compiler optimisations. Here we really need the barrier on some CPUs. Thanks for the review. NeilBrown > > > + wake_up_var(&dentry->d_fsdata); > > +} > > + > > /* > > * A weaker form of d_revalidate for revalidating just the > > d_inode(dentry) > > * when we don't really care about the dentry name. This is called > > when a > > @@ -2501,15 +2522,12 @@ int nfs_unlink(struct inode *dir, struct > > dentry *dentry) > > spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock); > > goto out; > > } > > - /* old devname */ > > - kfree(dentry->d_fsdata); > > - dentry->d_fsdata = NFS_FSDATA_BLOCKED; > > + block_revalidate(dentry); > > > > spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock); > > error = nfs_safe_remove(dentry); > > nfs_dentry_remove_handle_error(dir, dentry, error); > > - dentry->d_fsdata = NULL; > > - wake_up_var(&dentry->d_fsdata); > > + unblock_revalidate(dentry); > > out: > > trace_nfs_unlink_exit(dir, dentry, error); > > return error; > > @@ -2616,8 +2634,7 @@ nfs_unblock_rename(struct rpc_task *task, > > struct nfs_renamedata *data) > > { > > struct dentry *new_dentry = data->new_dentry; > > > > - new_dentry->d_fsdata = NULL; > > - wake_up_var(&new_dentry->d_fsdata); > > + unblock_revalidate(new_dentry); > > } > > > > /* > > @@ -2679,11 +2696,6 @@ int nfs_rename(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct > > inode *old_dir, > > if (WARN_ON(new_dentry->d_flags & > > DCACHE_NFSFS_RENAMED) || > > WARN_ON(new_dentry->d_fsdata == > > NFS_FSDATA_BLOCKED)) > > goto out; > > - if (new_dentry->d_fsdata) { > > - /* old devname */ > > - kfree(new_dentry->d_fsdata); > > - new_dentry->d_fsdata = NULL; > > - } > > > > spin_lock(&new_dentry->d_lock); > > if (d_count(new_dentry) > 2) { > > @@ -2705,7 +2717,7 @@ int nfs_rename(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct > > inode *old_dir, > > new_dentry = dentry; > > new_inode = NULL; > > } else { > > - new_dentry->d_fsdata = NFS_FSDATA_BLOCKED; > > + block_revalidate(new_dentry); > > must_unblock = true; > > spin_unlock(&new_dentry->d_lock); > > } > > @@ -2717,6 +2729,8 @@ int nfs_rename(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct > > inode *old_dir, > > task = nfs_async_rename(old_dir, new_dir, old_dentry, > > new_dentry, > > must_unblock ? nfs_unblock_rename : > > NULL); > > if (IS_ERR(task)) { > > + if (must_unblock) > > + unblock_revalidate(new_dentry); > > error = PTR_ERR(task); > > goto out; > > } > > -- > Trond Myklebust > Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace > trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > >
