lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/9] Support follow_link in RCU-walk.
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 06:05:20 +0000 Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:21:21PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > Hi Al (and others),
> >
> > I wonder if you could look over this patchset.
> > It allows RCU-walk to follow symlinks in many common cases,
> > thus removing a surprising performance hit caused by using symlinks.
> >
> > The last could of patches make changes to XFS and NFS to support
> > this but I haven't forwarded to the relevant lists yet.
> > If/when the early code meets with approval I'll do that.
> >
> > The first patch almost certainly needs to be changed. I originally
> > wrote this code when filesystems could see inside nameidata.
> > It is now opaque so the simplest solution was to provide an
> > accessor function.
> > Maybe I should as a 'flags' arg to ->follow_link?? Or have
> > ->follow_link and ->follow_link_rcu ??
> > What do you suggest?
>
> Umm... Some observations:
> * now ->follow_link() can be called in RCU mode, which means
> that it can race with fs shutdown; not a problem, except that now it
> joins ->lookup() et.al. in "if some data structure is needed in RCU
> case of that, make sure it's not destroyed without an RCU delay somewhere
> between the entry into ->kill_sb() and destruction.
> * highmem pages in symlinks: that BS shouldn't be allowed at
> all. Just make sure that at least for those filesystems symlink inodes
> get mapping_set_gfp_mask(&inode->i_data, GFP_KERNEL) and be done with that.
> * are you sure that security_inode_follow_link() is OK to call in
> RCU mode?
> * what warranties are you giving for the lifetime of strings
> passed to nd_set_link()? Right now it's "should not be freed until the
> matching ->put_link()"; what happens for RCU mode?
> * really nasty one: creat(2) on a dangling symlink. What's to
> preserve the last component if you get into that symlink in RCU mode?
>
> TBH, I'm less than fond of passing nameidata to ->follow_link() at all,
> flags or no flags. We could kill current->link_count and
> current->total_link_count, replacing them with one void * current->nameidata
> and taking counters into struct nameidata itself. Have places like e.g.
> kern_path_locked() do
> struct nameidata nd, *saved = set_nameidata(&nd);
> ...
> set_nameidata(saved);
> with set_nameidata(p) doing this:
> old = current->nameidata;
> current->nameidata = p;
> if (p) {
> if (!old) {
> p->link_count = 0;
> p->total_link_count = 0;
> } else {
> p->link_count = old->link_count;
> p->total_link_count = old->total_link_count;
> }
> }
> return old;
>
> Then nd_set_link() et.al. would use current->nameidata instead of an
> explicitly passed pointer and ->follow_link() instances wouldn't need
> that opaque pointer passed to them at all.

Wow, thanks for the quick response!!!

I'll look into all those issues and get back to you when I have something
coherent to say.

NeilBrown
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-05 22:21    [W:0.100 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site