Skip to content

L
linux
Switch branch/tag
  1. 27 Sep, 2022 1 commit
  3. 25 Sep, 2022 3 commits
  5. 29 Aug, 2022 1 commit
  7. 28 Aug, 2022 1 commit
  9. 23 Aug, 2022 2 commits
  11. 22 Aug, 2022 1 commit
  13. 11 Aug, 2022 2 commits
  15. 02 Aug, 2022 2 commits
  17. 28 Jul, 2022 1 commit
  19. 20 Jul, 2022 2 commits
  21. 11 Jul, 2022 1 commit
  23. 09 Jul, 2022 3 commits
  25. 08 Jul, 2022 13 commits
  27. 06 Jul, 2022 1 commit
  29. 03 Jul, 2022 4 commits
    • Linus Torvalds's avatar
      Linux 5.19-rc5 · 88084a3d
      Linus Torvalds authored
      88084a3d
    • Linus Torvalds's avatar
      lockref: remove unused 'lockref_get_or_lock()' function · b8d5109f
      Linus Torvalds authored 
      Looking at the conditional lock acquire functions in the kernel due to
the new sparse support (see commit 4a557a5d "sparse: introduce
conditional lock acquire function attribute"), it became obvious that
the lockref code has a couple of them, but they don't match the usual
naming convention for the other ones, and their return value logic is
also reversed.

In the other very similar places, the naming pattern is '*_and_lock()'
(eg 'atomic_put_and_lock()' and 'refcount_dec_and_lock()'), and the
function returns true when the lock is taken.

The lockref code is superficially very similar to the refcount code,
only with the special "atomic wrt the embedded lock" semantics.  But
instead of the '*_and_lock()' naming it uses '*_or_lock()'.

And instead of returning true in case it took the lock, it returns true
if it *didn't* take the lock.

Now, arguably the reflock code is quite logical: it really is a "either
decrement _or_ lock" kind of situation - and the return value is about
whether the operation succeeded without any special care needed.

So despite the similarities, the differences do make some sense, and
maybe it's not worth trying to unify the different conditional locking
primitives in this area.

But while looking at this all, it did become obvious that the
'lockref_get_or_lock()' function hasn't actually had any users for
almost a decade.

The only user it ever had was the shortlived 'd_rcu_to_refcount()'
function, and it got removed and replaced with 'lockref_get_not_dead()'
back in 2013 in commits 0d98439e ("vfs: use lockred 'dead' flag to
mark unrecoverably dead dentries") and e5c832d5 ("vfs: fix dentry
RCU to refcounting possibly sleeping dput()")

In fact, that single use was removed less than a week after the whole
function was introduced in commit b3abd802 ("lockref: add
'lockref_get_or_lock() helper") so this function has been around for a
decade, but only had a user for six days.

Let's just put this mis-designed and unused function out of its misery.

We can think about the naming and semantic oddities of the remaining
'lockref_put_or_lock()' later, but at least that function has users.

And while the naming is different and the return value doesn't match,
that function matches the whole '{atomic,refcount}_dec_and_test()'
pattern much better (ie the magic happens when the count goes down to
zero, not when it is incremented from zero).
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      b8d5109f
    • Linus Torvalds's avatar
      sparse: introduce conditional lock acquire function attribute · 4a557a5d
      Linus Torvalds authored 
      The kernel tends to try to avoid conditional locking semantics because
it makes it harder to think about and statically check locking rules,
but we do have a few fundamental locking primitives that take locks
conditionally - most obviously the 'trylock' functions.

That has always been a problem for 'sparse' checking for locking
imbalance, and we've had a special '__cond_lock()' macro that we've used
to let sparse know how the locking works:

    # define __cond_lock(x,c)        ((c) ? ({ __acquire(x); 1; }) : 0)

so that you can then use this to tell sparse that (for example) the
spinlock trylock macro ends up acquiring the lock when it succeeds, but
not when it fails:

    #define raw_spin_trylock(lock)  __cond_lock(lock, _raw_spin_trylock(lock))

and then sparse can follow along the locking rules when you have code like

        if (!spin_trylock(&dentry->d_lock))
                return LRU_SKIP;
	.. sparse sees that the lock is held here..
        spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);

and sparse ends up happy about the lock contexts.

However, this '__cond_lock()' use does result in very ugly header files,
and requires you to basically wrap the real function with that macro
that uses '__cond_lock'.  Which has made PeterZ NAK things that try to
fix sparse warnings over the years [1].

To solve this, there is now a very experimental patch to sparse that
basically does the exact same thing as '__cond_lock()' did, but using a
function attribute instead.  That seems to make PeterZ happy [2].

Note that this does not replace existing use of '__cond_lock()', but
only exposes the new proposed attribute and uses it for the previously
unannotated 'refcount_dec_and_lock()' family of functions.

For existing sparse installations, this will make no difference (a
negative output context was ignored), but if you have the experimental
sparse patch it will make sparse now understand code that uses those
functions, the same way '__cond_lock()' makes sparse understand the very
similar 'atomic_dec_and_lock()' uses that have the old '__cond_lock()'
annotations.

Note that in some cases this will silence existing context imbalance
warnings.  But in other cases it may end up exposing new sparse warnings
for code that sparse just didn't see the locking for at all before.

This is a trial, in other words.  I'd expect that if it ends up being
successful, and new sparse releases end up having this new attribute,
we'll migrate the old-style '__cond_lock()' users to use the new-style
'__cond_acquires' function attribute.

The actual experimental sparse patch was posted in [3].

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20130930134434.GC12926@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Yr60tWxN4P568x3W@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net/ [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wjZfO9hGqJ2_hGQG3U_XzSh9_XaXze=HgPdvJbgrvASfA@mail.gmail.com/ [3]
Acked-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
Cc: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      4a557a5d
    • Linus Torvalds's avatar
      Merge tag 'xfs-5.19-fixes-4' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfs-linux · 20855e4c
      Linus Torvalds authored 
      Pull xfs fixes from Darrick Wong:
 "This fixes some stalling problems and corrects the last of the
  problems (I hope) observed during testing of the new atomic xattr
  update feature.

   - Fix statfs blocking on background inode gc workers

   - Fix some broken inode lock assertion code

   - Fix xattr leaf buffer leaks when cancelling a deferred xattr update
     operation

   - Clean up xattr recovery to make it easier to understand.

   - Fix xattr leaf block verifiers tripping over empty blocks.

   - Remove complicated and error prone xattr leaf block bholding mess.

   - Fix a bug where an rt extent crossing EOF was treated as "posteof"
     blocks and cleaned unnecessarily.

   - Fix a UAF when log shutdown races with unmount"

* tag 'xfs-5.19-fixes-4' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfs-linux:
  xfs: prevent a UAF when log IO errors race with unmount
  xfs: dont treat rt extents beyond EOF as eofblocks to be cleared
  xfs: don't hold xattr leaf buffers across transaction rolls
  xfs: empty xattr leaf header blocks are not corruption
  xfs: clean up the end of xfs_attri_item_recover
  xfs: always free xattri_leaf_bp when cancelling a deferred op
  xfs: use invalidate_lock to check the state of mmap_lock
  xfs: factor out the common lock flags assert
  xfs: introduce xfs_inodegc_push()
  xfs: bound maximum wait time for inodegc work
      20855e4c
  31. 02 Jul, 2022 2 commits
GitLab Nexedi Edition | About GitLab | About Nexedi | 沪ICP备2021021310号-2 | 沪ICP备2021021310号-7