Re: [PATCH 1/2] kernfs: dont take i_lock on inode attr read

[Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>]

On 28/7/23 08:00, Ian Kent wrote:
> On 27/7/23 12:30, Imran Khan wrote:
>> Hello Ian,
>> Sorry for late reply. I was about to reply this week.
>>
>> On 27/7/2023 10:38 am, Ian Kent wrote:
>>> On 20/7/23 10:03, Ian Kent wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2023-07-19 at 12:23 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> I do see a problem with recent changes.
>>>>
>>>> I'll send this off to Greg after I've done some testing (primarily 
>>>> just
>>>> compile and function).
>>>>
>>>> Here's a patch which describes what I found.
>>>>
>>>> Comments are, of course, welcome, ;)
>>> Anders I was hoping you would check if/what lockdep trace
>>>
>>> you get with this patch.
>>>
>>>
>>> Imran, I was hoping you would comment on my change as it
>>>
>>> relates to the kernfs_iattr_rwsem changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>> kernfs: fix missing kernfs_iattr_rwsem locking
>>>>
>>>> From: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
>>>>
>>>> When the kernfs_iattr_rwsem was introduced a case was missed.
>>>>
>>>> The update of the kernfs directory node child count was also protected
>>>> by the kernfs_rwsem and needs to be included in the change so that the
>>>> child count (and so the inode n_link attribute) does not change while
>>>> holding the rwsem for read.
>>>>
>> kernfs direcytory node's child count changes in 
>> kernfs_(un)link_sibling and
>> these are getting invoked while adding (kernfs_add_one),
>> removing(__kernfs_remove) or moving (kernfs_rename_ns)a node. Each of 
>> these
>> operations proceed under kernfs_rwsem and I see each invocation of
>> kernfs_link/unlink_sibling during the above mentioned operations is 
>> happening
>> under kernfs_rwsem.
>> So the child count should still be protected by kernfs_rwsem and we 
>> should not
>> need to acquire kernfs_iattr_rwsem in kernfs_link/unlink_sibling.
>
> Yes, that's exactly what I intended (assuming you mean write lock in 
> those cases)
>
> when I did it so now I wonder what I saw that lead to my patch, I'll 
> need to look
>
> again ...

Ahh, I see why I thought this ...

It's the hunk:

@@ -285,10 +285,10 @@ int kernfs_iop_permission(struct mnt_idmap *idmap,
         kn = inode->i_private;
         root = kernfs_root(kn);

-       down_read(&root->kernfs_rwsem);
+       down_read(&root->kernfs_iattr_rwsem);
         kernfs_refresh_inode(kn, inode);
         ret = generic_permission(&nop_mnt_idmap, inode, mask);
-       up_read(&root->kernfs_rwsem);
+       up_read(&root->kernfs_iattr_rwsem);

         return ret;
  }

which takes away the kernfs_rwsem and introduces the possibility of

the change. It may be more instructive to add back taking the read

lock of kernfs_rwsem in .permission() than altering the sibling link

and unlink functions, I mean I even caught myself on it.


Ian

>
>
>>
>> Kindly let me know your thoughts. I would still like to see new 
>> lockdep traces
>> with this change.
>
> Indeed, I hope Anders can find time to get the trace.
>
>
> Ian
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Imran
>>
>>>> Fixes: 9caf696142 (kernfs: Introduce separate rwsem to protect inode
>>>> attributes)
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
>>>> Cc: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
>>>> Cc: Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
>>>> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>>>> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
>>>> Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
>>>> ---
>>>>    fs/kernfs/dir.c |    4 ++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/kernfs/dir.c b/fs/kernfs/dir.c
>>>> index 45b6919903e6..6e84bb69602e 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/kernfs/dir.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/kernfs/dir.c
>>>> @@ -383,9 +383,11 @@ static int kernfs_link_sibling(struct kernfs_node
>>>> *kn)
>>>>        rb_insert_color(&kn->rb, &kn->parent->dir.children);
>>>>          /* successfully added, account subdir number */
>>>> + down_write(&kernfs_root(kn)->kernfs_iattr_rwsem);
>>>>        if (kernfs_type(kn) == KERNFS_DIR)
>>>>            kn->parent->dir.subdirs++;
>>>>        kernfs_inc_rev(kn->parent);
>>>> +    up_write(&kernfs_root(kn)->kernfs_iattr_rwsem);
>>>>          return 0;
>>>>    }
>>>> @@ -408,9 +410,11 @@ static bool kernfs_unlink_sibling(struct
>>>> kernfs_node *kn)
>>>>        if (RB_EMPTY_NODE(&kn->rb))
>>>>            return false;
>>>>    + down_write(&kernfs_root(kn)->kernfs_iattr_rwsem);
>>>>        if (kernfs_type(kn) == KERNFS_DIR)
>>>>            kn->parent->dir.subdirs--;
>>>>        kernfs_inc_rev(kn->parent);
>>>> +    up_write(&kernfs_root(kn)->kernfs_iattr_rwsem);
>>>>          rb_erase(&kn->rb, &kn->parent->dir.children);
>>>>        RB_CLEAR_NODE(&kn->rb);
>>>>