From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11B8EC43219 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 17:01:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4AEC2084F for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 17:01:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726404AbfDZRBM (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:01:12 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:39480 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726083AbfDZRBM (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:01:12 -0400 Received: from viro by ZenIV.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.92 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hK4Dl-0003lY-0m; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 17:01:09 +0000 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 18:01:08 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jeff Layton , Ilya Dryomov , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, Linux List Kernel Mailing Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph fixes for 5.1-rc7 Message-ID: <20190426170108.GZ2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20190425174739.27604-1-idryomov@gmail.com> <342ef35feb1110197108068d10e518742823a210.camel@kernel.org> <20190425200941.GW2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <86674e79e9f24e81feda75bc3c0dd4215604ffa5.camel@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 09:36:00AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:25 AM Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > Is it really ok to union the count and rcu_head there? > > It should be fine, because the rcu_count should only ever be used once > the count has gone to zero and the name cannot be found any more. > > And while RCU path walking may find and use the *name* after the > dentry has been killed off (but not free'd yet), all the actual > external_name() accesses should be serialized by the dentry lock, so > there's no access to those fields once the dentry is dead. It's not quite that; access to external_name contents is fine, ->d_lock or not. __d_lookup_rcu() does read it under rcu_read_lock alone. However: * we never free it without an RCU delay after the final drop of refcount. RCU delay might happen on dentry->d_rcu (if it's dentry_free()) or on name->p.rcu (if it's release_dentry_name_snapshot() or d_move() dropping the final reference). * it's never observed in ->d_name after the refcount reaches zero. * no lockless access ever looks at the refcount. It can look at ->name[], but that's it. What I don't understand is why would anyone want to mess with name snapshots for dentry_path() lookalikes...