Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 22 Apr 2019 16:55:20 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        yi.zhang@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dcache: ensure d_flags & d_inode are consistent in
 lookup_fast()
Message-ID: <20190422155520.GJ2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20190419084810.63732-1-houtao1@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190419084810.63732-1-houtao1@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 04:48:10PM +0800, Hou Tao wrote:

> The root cause is the inconsistency between d_flags & d_inode
> during the REF-walk in lookup_fast(): d_is_negative(dentry)
> returns false, but d_backing_inode() still returns a NULL pointer.
> 
> The RCU-walk path in lookup_fast() uses d_seq to ensure d_flags & d_inode
> are consistent, and lookup_slow() use inode lock to ensure that, so only
> the REF-walk path in lookup_fast() is problematic.
> 
> Fixing it by adding a paired smp_rmb/smp_wmb between the reading/writing
> of d_inode & d_flags to ensure the consistency.

The problem is real, but I'm not sure I like the proposed fix ;-/
We could simply use d_really_is_negative() there, avoiding all that
mess.  If and when we get around to whiteouts-in-dcache (i.e. if
unionfs series gets resurrected), we can revisit that...