On 11/17/23 16:53, Wenchao Hao wrote:
> On 2023/11/17 14:14, Xiubo Li wrote:
>>
>> On 11/16/23 15:09, Wenchao Hao wrote:
>>> On 2023/11/16 11:06, Xiubo Li wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/16/23 10:54, Wenchao Hao wrote:
>>>>> On 2023/11/15 21:34, Xiubo Li wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/15/23 21:25, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 2:17 PM Xiubo Li <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/15/23 20:32, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 1:35 AM Xiubo Li <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/23 23:31, Wenchao Hao wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> This issue is reported by smatch, get_quota_realm() might
>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>> ERR_PTR, so we should using IS_ERR_OR_NULL here to check the
>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wenchao Hao <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> fs/ceph/quota.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/ceph/quota.c b/fs/ceph/quota.c
>>>>>>>>>>> index 9d36c3532de1..c4b2929c6a83 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/ceph/quota.c
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/ceph/quota.c
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -495,7 +495,7 @@ bool ceph_quota_update_statfs(struct
>>>>>>>>>>> ceph_fs_client *fsc, struct kstatfs *buf)
>>>>>>>>>>> realm = get_quota_realm(mdsc, d_inode(fsc->sb->s_root),
>>>>>>>>>>> QUOTA_GET_MAX_BYTES, true);
>>>>>>>>>>> up_read(&mdsc->snap_rwsem);
>>>>>>>>>>> - if (!realm)
>>>>>>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(realm))
>>>>>>>>>>> return false;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> spin_lock(&realm->inodes_with_caps_lock);
>>>>>>>>>> Good catch.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Xiubo Li <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We should CC the stable mail list.
>>>>>>>>> Hi Xiubo,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What exactly is being fixed here? get_quota_realm() is called
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> retry=true, which means that no errors can be returned --
>>>>>>>>> EAGAIN, the
>>>>>>>>> only error that get_quota_realm() can otherwise generate,
>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>> handled internally by retrying.
>>>>>>>> Yeah, that's true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am I missing something that makes this qualify for stable?
>>>>>>>> Actually it's just for the smatch check for now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMO we shouldn't depend on the 'retry', just potentially for
>>>>>>>> new changes
>>>>>>>> in future could return a ERR_PTR and cause potential bugs.
>>>>>>> At present, ceph_quota_is_same_realm() also depends on it --
>>>>>>> note how
>>>>>>> old_realm isn't checked for errors at all and new_realm is only
>>>>>>> checked
>>>>>>> for EAGAIN there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If that's not worth to make it for stable, let's remove it.
>>>>>>> Yes, let's remove it. Please update the commit message as well, so
>>>>>>> that it's clear that this is squashing a static checker warning and
>>>>>>> doesn't actually fix any immediate bug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WenChao,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could update the commit comment and send the V2 ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, I would update the commit comment as following:
>>>>>
>>>>> This issue is reported by smatch, get_quota_realm() might return
>>>>> ERR_PTR. It's not a immediate bug because get_quota_realm() is called
>>>>> with 'retry=true', no errors can be returned.
>>>>>
>>>>> While we still should check the return value of get_quota_realm()
>>>>> with
>>>>> IS_ERR_OR_NULL to avoid potential bugs if get_quota_realm() is
>>>>> changed
>>>>> to return other ERR_PTR in future.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's more, should I change the ceph_quota_is_same_realm() too?
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, please. Let's fix them all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> is_same is return as true if both old_realm and new_realm are NULL,
>>> I do not
>>> want to change the origin logic except add check for ERR_PTR, so
>>> following
>>> is my change:
>>>
>>> 1. make sure xxx_realm is valid before calling ceph_put_snap_realm.
>>> 2. return false if new_realm or old_realm is ERR_PTR, this is newly
>>> added
>>> and now we would always run with the else branch.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/ceph/quota.c b/fs/ceph/quota.c
>>> index c4b2929c6a83..8da9ffb05395 100644
>>> --- a/fs/ceph/quota.c
>>> +++ b/fs/ceph/quota.c
>>> @@ -290,16 +290,20 @@ bool ceph_quota_is_same_realm(struct inode
>>> *old, struct inode *new)
>>> new_realm = get_quota_realm(mdsc, new, QUOTA_GET_ANY, false);
>>> if (PTR_ERR(new_realm) == -EAGAIN) {
>>> up_read(&mdsc->snap_rwsem);
>>> - if (old_realm)
>>> + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(old_realm))
>>> ceph_put_snap_realm(mdsc, old_realm);
>>> goto restart;
>>> }
>>> - is_same = (old_realm == new_realm);
>>> up_read(&mdsc->snap_rwsem);
>>>
>>> - if (old_realm)
>>> + if (IS_ERR(new_realm))
>>> + is_same = false;
>>> + else
>>> + is_same = (old_realm == new_realm);
>>> +
>>> + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(old_realm))
>>> ceph_put_snap_realm(mdsc, old_realm);
>>> - if (new_realm)
>>> + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(new_realm))
>>> ceph_put_snap_realm(mdsc, new_realm);
>>>
>>> return is_same;
>>>
>> If we just to fix the smatch check, how about make get_quota_realm()
>> to return a 'int' type value and at the same time add a 'realmp'
>> parameter ? And just return '-EAGAIN' or '0' always.
>>
>> Then it will be something likes:
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ceph/quota.c b/fs/ceph/quota.c
>> index c4b2929c6a83..f37f5324b6a1 100644
>> --- a/fs/ceph/quota.c
>> +++ b/fs/ceph/quota.c
>> @@ -211,10 +211,9 @@ void ceph_cleanup_quotarealms_inodes(struct
>> ceph_mds_client *mdsc)
>> * this function will return -EAGAIN; otherwise, the snaprealms
>> walk-through
>> * will be restarted.
>> */
>> -static struct ceph_snap_realm *get_quota_realm(struct
>> ceph_mds_client *mdsc,
>> - struct inode *inode,
>> - enum quota_get_realm
>> which_quota,
>> - bool retry)
>> +static int get_quota_realm(struct ceph_mds_client *mdsc, struct
>> inode *inode,
>> + enum quota_get_realm which_quota,
>> + struct ceph_snap_realm **realmp, bool retry)
>> {
>> struct ceph_client *cl = mdsc->fsc->client;
>> struct ceph_inode_info *ci = NULL;
>> @@ -222,8 +221,10 @@ static struct ceph_snap_realm
>> *get_quota_realm(struct ceph_mds_client *mdsc,
>> struct inode *in;
>> bool has_quota;
>>
>> + if (realmp)
>> + *realmp = NULL;
>> if (ceph_snap(inode) != CEPH_NOSNAP)
>> - return NULL;
>> + return 0;
>>
>> restart:
>> realm = ceph_inode(inode)->i_snap_realm;
>> @@ -250,7 +251,7 @@ static struct ceph_snap_realm
>> *get_quota_realm(struct ceph_mds_client *mdsc,
>> break;
>> ceph_put_snap_realm(mdsc, realm);
>> if (!retry)
>> - return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);
>> + return -EAGAIN;
>> goto restart;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -259,8 +260,11 @@ static struct ceph_snap_realm
>> *get_quota_realm(struct ceph_mds_client *mdsc,
>> iput(in);
>>
>> next = realm->parent;
>> - if (has_quota || !next)
>> - return realm;
>> + if (has_quota || !next) {
>> + if (realmp)
>> + *realmp = realm;
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>>
>> ceph_get_snap_realm(mdsc, next);
>> ceph_put_snap_realm(mdsc, realm);
>> @@ -269,14 +273,15 @@ static struct ceph_snap_realm
>> *get_quota_realm(struct ceph_mds_client *mdsc,
>> if (realm)
>> ceph_put_snap_realm(mdsc, realm);
>>
>> - return NULL;
>> + return 0;
>> }
>>
>> bool ceph_quota_is_same_realm(struct inode *old, struct inode *new)
>> {
>> struct ceph_mds_client *mdsc = ceph_sb_to_mdsc(old->i_sb);
>> - struct ceph_snap_realm *old_realm, *new_realm;
>> + struct ceph_snap_realm *old_realm = NULL, *new_realm = NULL;
>> bool is_same;
>> + int ret;
>>
>> restart:
>> /*
>> @@ -286,9 +291,9 @@ bool ceph_quota_is_same_realm(struct inode *old,
>> struct inode *new)
>> * dropped and we can then restart the whole operation.
>> */
>> down_read(&mdsc->snap_rwsem);
>> - old_realm = get_quota_realm(mdsc, old, QUOTA_GET_ANY, true);
>> - new_realm = get_quota_realm(mdsc, new, QUOTA_GET_ANY, false);
>> - if (PTR_ERR(new_realm) == -EAGAIN) {
>> + get_quota_realm(mdsc, old, QUOTA_GET_ANY, &old_relam, true);
>> + ret = get_quota_realm(mdsc, new, QUOTA_GET_ANY, &new_realm,
>> false);
>> + if (ret == -EAGAIN) {
>> up_read(&mdsc->snap_rwsem);
>> if (old_realm)
>> ceph_put_snap_realm(mdsc, old_realm);
>>
>>
>> Won't be this better ?
>>
>
> Yes, it looks better.
>
> Would you post a patch to address it? Or should I apply your changes and
> send a V2?
>
The above just a draft patch.
Please send a V2 for it and I will review and test it.
Thanks
- Xiubo
>> Thanks
>>
>> - Xiubo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> - Xiubo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Xiubo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ilya
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>