Linux-Fsdevel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Jean-Louis Biasini <jl.biasini@laposte.net>
To: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>,
	Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
	Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: introduce is_dot_dotdot helper for cleanup
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:06:28 +0100
Message-ID: <12554a8e-2899-f03f-ec3d-d4cf35c4dd71@laposte.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <357ad021-a58c-ad46-42bd-d5012126276f@loongson.cn>

Please UNSUBSCRIBE ME from this list of tell how to!!!

Le 03/12/2019 à 03:07, Tiezhu Yang a écrit :
> On 12/03/2019 04:03 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 06:10:13PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
>>> There exists many similar and duplicate codes to check "." and "..",
>>> so introduce is_dot_dotdot helper to make the code more clean.
>> The idea is good.  The implementation is, I'm afraid, badly chosen.
>> Did you benchmark this change at all?  In general, you should prefer the
>> core kernel implementation to that of some less-interesting filesystems.
>> I measured the performance with the attached test program on my laptop
>> (Core-i7 Kaby Lake):
>>
>> qstr . time_1 0.020531 time_2 0.005786
>> qstr .. time_1 0.017892 time_2 0.008798
>> qstr a time_1 0.017633 time_2 0.003634
>> qstr matthew time_1 0.011820 time_2 0.003605
>> qstr .a time_1 0.017909 time_2 0.008710
>> qstr , time_1 0.017631 time_2 0.003619
>>
>> The results are quite stable:
>>
>> qstr . time_1 0.021137 time_2 0.005780
>> qstr .. time_1 0.017964 time_2 0.008675
>> qstr a time_1 0.017899 time_2 0.003654
>> qstr matthew time_1 0.011821 time_2 0.003620
>> qstr .a time_1 0.017889 time_2 0.008662
>> qstr , time_1 0.017764 time_2 0.003613
>>
>> Feel free to suggest some different strings we could use for testing.
>> These seemed like interesting strings to test with.  It's always
>> possible
>> I've messed up something with this benchmark that causes it to not
>> accurately represent the performance of each algorithm, so please check
>> that too.
>
> [Sorry to resend this email because the mail list server
> was denied due to it is not plain text.]
>
> Hi Matthew,
>
> Thanks for your reply and suggestion. I measured the
> performance with the test program, the following
> implementation is better for various of test cases:
>
> bool is_dot_dotdot(const struct qstr *str)
> {
>         if (unlikely(str->name[0] == '.')) {
>                 if (str->len < 2 || (str->len == 2 && str->name[1] ==
> '.'))
>                         return true;
>         }
>
>         return false;
> }
>
> I will send a v2 patch used with this implementation.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tiezhu Yang
>
>>
>>> +bool is_dot_dotdot(const struct qstr *str)
>>> +{
>>> +    if (str->len == 1 && str->name[0] == '.')
>>> +        return true;
>>> +
>>> +    if (str->len == 2 && str->name[0] == '.' && str->name[1] == '.')
>>> +        return true;
>>> +
>>> +    return false;
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(is_dot_dotdot);
>>> diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
>>> index 2dda552..7730a3b 100644
>>> --- a/fs/namei.c
>>> +++ b/fs/namei.c
>>> @@ -2458,10 +2458,8 @@ static int lookup_one_len_common(const char
>>> *name, struct dentry *base,
>>>       if (!len)
>>>           return -EACCES;
>>>   -    if (unlikely(name[0] == '.')) {
>>> -        if (len < 2 || (len == 2 && name[1] == '.'))
>>> -            return -EACCES;
>>> -    }
>>> +    if (unlikely(is_dot_dotdot(this)))
>>> +        return -EACCES;
>>>         while (len--) {
>>>           unsigned int c = *(const unsigned char *)name++;
>


      parent reply index

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-12-02 10:10 Tiezhu Yang
2019-12-02 20:03 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-12-03  2:07   ` Tiezhu Yang
2019-12-03  2:39     ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-12-03  8:33       ` Tiezhu Yang
2019-12-03  2:46     ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-12-04 13:06     ` Jean-Louis Biasini [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=12554a8e-2899-f03f-ec3d-d4cf35c4dd71@laposte.net \
    --to=jl.biasini@laposte.net \
    --cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
    --cc=ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tyhicks@canonical.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=yangtiezhu@loongson.cn \
    --cc=yuchao0@huawei.com \
    /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

Linux-Fsdevel Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/0 linux-fsdevel/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-fsdevel linux-fsdevel/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel \
		linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-fsdevel

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git