From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Gautham Ananthakrishna <gautham.ananthakrishna@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, matthew.wilcox@oracle.com,
khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/6] dcache: sweep cached negative dentries to the end of list of siblings
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 03:41:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YHZkVlhchiNB9o18@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1611235185-1685-2-git-send-email-gautham.ananthakrishna@oracle.com>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 06:49:40PM +0530, Gautham Ananthakrishna wrote:
> +static void sweep_negative(struct dentry *dentry)
> +{
> + struct dentry *parent;
> +
> + if (!d_is_tail_negative(dentry)) {
> + parent = lock_parent(dentry);
> + if (!parent)
> + return;
Wait a minute. It's not a good environment for calling lock_parent().
Who said that dentry won't get freed right under it?
Right now callers of __lock_parent() either hold a reference to dentry
*or* are called for a positive dentry, with inode->i_lock held.
You are introducing something very different -
> if (likely(retain_dentry(dentry))) {
> + if (d_is_negative(dentry))
> + sweep_negative(dentry);
> spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
Here we can be called for a negative dentry with refcount already *NOT*
held by us. Look:
static inline struct dentry *lock_parent(struct dentry *dentry)
{
struct dentry *parent = dentry->d_parent;
if (IS_ROOT(dentry))
return NULL;
isn't a root
if (likely(spin_trylock(&parent->d_lock)))
return parent;
no such luck - someone's already holding parent's ->d_lock
return __lock_parent(dentry);
and here we have
static struct dentry *__lock_parent(struct dentry *dentry)
{
struct dentry *parent;
rcu_read_lock();
OK, anything we see in its ->d_parent is guaranteed to stay
allocated until we get to matching rcu_read_unlock()
spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
dropped the spinlock, now it's fair game for d_move(), d_drop(), etc.
again:
parent = READ_ONCE(dentry->d_parent);
dentry couldn't have been reused, so it's the last value stored there.
Points to still allocated struct dentry instance, so we can...
spin_lock(&parent->d_lock);
grab its ->d_lock.
/*
* We can't blindly lock dentry until we are sure
* that we won't violate the locking order.
* Any changes of dentry->d_parent must have
* been done with parent->d_lock held, so
* spin_lock() above is enough of a barrier
* for checking if it's still our child.
*/
if (unlikely(parent != dentry->d_parent)) {
spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
goto again;
}
Nevermind, it's still equal to our ->d_parent. So we have
the last valid parent's ->d_lock held
rcu_read_unlock();
What's to hold dentry allocated now? IF we held its refcount - no
problem, it can't go away. If we held its ->d_inode->i_lock - ditto
(it wouldn't get to __dentry_kill() until we drop that, since all
callers do acquire that lock and it couldn't get scheduled for
freeing until it gets through most of __dentry_kill()).
IOW, we are free to grab dentry->d_lock again.
if (parent != dentry)
spin_lock_nested(&dentry->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED);
else
parent = NULL;
return parent;
}
With your patch, though, you've got a call site where neither condition
is guaranteed. Current kernel is fine - we are holding ->d_lock there,
and we don't touch dentry after it gets dropped. Again, it can't get
scheduled for freeing until after we drop ->d_lock, so we are safe.
With that change, however, you've got a hard-to-hit memory corruptor
there...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-14 3:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-21 13:19 [PATCH RFC 0/6] fix the negative dentres bloating system memory usage Gautham Ananthakrishna
2021-01-21 13:19 ` [PATCH RFC 1/6] dcache: sweep cached negative dentries to the end of list of siblings Gautham Ananthakrishna
2021-04-14 3:00 ` Al Viro
2021-04-15 16:50 ` Al Viro
2021-04-14 3:41 ` Al Viro [this message]
2021-04-15 16:25 ` Al Viro
2021-01-21 13:19 ` [PATCH RFC 2/6] fsnotify: stop walking child dentries if remaining tail is negative Gautham Ananthakrishna
2021-01-21 13:19 ` [PATCH RFC 3/6] dcache: add action D_WALK_SKIP_SIBLINGS to d_walk() Gautham Ananthakrishna
2021-01-21 13:19 ` [PATCH RFC 4/6] dcache: stop walking siblings if remaining dentries all negative Gautham Ananthakrishna
2021-01-21 13:19 ` [PATCH RFC 5/6] dcache: push releasing dentry lock into sweep_negative Gautham Ananthakrishna
2021-01-21 13:19 ` [PATCH RFC 6/6] dcache: prevent flooding with negative dentries Gautham Ananthakrishna
2021-04-14 3:56 ` Al Viro
2021-03-31 14:23 ` [PATCH RFC 0/6] fix the negative dentres bloating system memory usage Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-14 2:40 ` Al Viro
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=YHZkVlhchiNB9o18@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=gautham.ananthakrishna@oracle.com \
--cc=khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=matthew.wilcox@oracle.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
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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).