On Tue, 25 Jul 2023, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-07-25 at 11:08 -0400, Scott Mayhew wrote:
> > Once a folio's private data has been cleared, it's possible for
> > another
> > process to clear the folio->mapping (e.g. via
> > invalidate_complete_folio2
> > or evict_mapping_folio), so it wouldn't be safe to call
> > nfs_page_to_inode() after that.
> >
> > Fixes: 0c493b5cf16e ("NFS: Convert buffered writes to use folios")
> > Signed-off-by: Scott Mayhew <smayhew@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/nfs/write.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/nfs/write.c b/fs/nfs/write.c
> > index f4cca8f00c0c..489c3f9dae23 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfs/write.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfs/write.c
> > @@ -785,6 +785,8 @@ static void nfs_inode_add_request(struct nfs_page
> > *req)
> > */
> > static void nfs_inode_remove_request(struct nfs_page *req)
> > {
> > + struct nfs_inode *nfsi = NFS_I(nfs_page_to_inode(req));
> > +
> > if (nfs_page_group_sync_on_bit(req, PG_REMOVE)) {
> > struct folio *folio = nfs_page_to_folio(req-
> > >wb_head);
> > struct address_space *mapping =
> > folio_file_mapping(folio);
> > @@ -800,7 +802,7 @@ static void nfs_inode_remove_request(struct
> > nfs_page *req)
> >
> > if (test_and_clear_bit(PG_INODE_REF, &req->wb_flags)) {
> > nfs_release_request(req);
> > - atomic_long_dec(&NFS_I(nfs_page_to_inode(req))-
> > >nrequests);
> > + atomic_long_dec(&nfsi->nrequests);
>
> Why not just invert the order of the atomic_long_dec() and the
> nfs_release_request()? That way you are also ensuring that the inode is
> still pinned in memory by the open context.
I'm not following. How does inverting the order prevent the
folio->mapping from getting clobbered?
-Scott
> > }
> > }
> >
>
> --
> Trond Myklebust
> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
