public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
To: Mateusz Guzik <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: support filename refcount without atomics
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:42:16 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250307164216.GI2023217@ZenIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 05:11:55PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> Atomics are only needed for a combination of io_uring and audit.
> 
> Regular file access (even with audit) gets around fine without them.
> 
> With this patch 'struct filename' starts with being refcounted using
> regular ops.
> 
> In order to avoid API explosion in the getname*() family, a dedicated
> routine is added to switch the obj to use atomics.
> 
> This leaves the room for merely issuing getname(), not issuing the
> switch and still trying to manipulate the refcount from another thread.
> 
> Catching such cases is facilitated by CONFIG_DEBUG_VFS-dependent
> tracking of who created the given filename object and having refname()
> and putname() detect if another thread is trying to modify them.

Not a good way to handle that, IMO.

Atomics do hurt there, but they are only plastering over the real
problem - names formed in one thread, inserted into audit context
there and operation involving them happening in a different thread.

Refcounting avoids an instant memory corruption, but the real PITA
is in audit users of that stuff.

IMO we should *NOT* grab an audit names slot at getname() time -
that ought to be done explicitly at later points.

The obstacle is that currently there still are several retry loop
with getname() done in it; I've most of that dealt with, need to
finish that series.

And yes, refcount becomes non-atomic as the result.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-03-07 16:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-03-07 16:11 [PATCH] fs: support filename refcount without atomics Mateusz Guzik
2025-03-07 16:18 ` Jens Axboe
2025-03-07 16:25   ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-03-07 16:32     ` Jens Axboe
2025-03-07 16:35       ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-03-07 16:38         ` Jens Axboe
2025-03-07 16:39           ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-03-07 16:26 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-03-07 16:32   ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-03-07 16:42 ` Al Viro [this message]
2025-03-07 16:44   ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-03-07 22:58     ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-03-08 13:35 ` kernel test robot
2025-03-08 13:46 ` kernel test robot

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20250307164216.GI2023217@ZenIV \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox