Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com>
To:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] fsnotify: allow sleepable child flag update
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxh8c2vbv50p8+rNnoV0H=L=+XRGuFP1dmGrrCrt6EjFYQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20221021010310.29521-1-stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com>
 <20221028001016.332663-1-stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com>
 <20221028001016.332663-4-stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com>
 <CAOQ4uxh8c2vbv50p8+rNnoV0H=L=+XRGuFP1dmGrrCrt6EjFYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 01 Nov 2022 14:25:50 -0700
Message-ID: <874jvigye9.fsf@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?us-ascii?Q?a7wrBZTQC1f28Fl8ue1hKYGVxlYkUl0tWqYWRrf4X3LDHBuPM4Wa+G9tmyq8?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?h+VDbNbx/9c3cJMiIpHodHTZ69/GIF42ZImMykv6sStc09te1VDYAr+Oog9P?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?qvE34sTSHfzoXBHr8NyV64S5xApizMOF0v+EPTkFdFO1jOqpX+vXqHAuo2BO?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?lNiZa2XJn/nMRg2b2I6ACNANqhcXdmxdS6pz2zoBWIQwK57pD6eKz9q5pE84?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?WmL98R63PJNmUkctH14sJ7EFctJNTMac0Igdst/tjtfdrvYzT+vn9EJkmCr5?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Q+mNT7o5yPslEkwIouF/4Erp50l1D+e3RTOsNB/ldo8wMpcrxflcvmW6HDdS?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?frlp3BlmMYT1Cix2PEdlBSjUwPOjRl2TCqQ9qwid7PEI3ctxvJb2lQBtA0Q7?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?wW+soBbN1x4UjfxbH0AOUM8kOB1sXN+HtrTHl7XFM0+yRoDB3J72ggg6OFGl?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?AQPePtoacKsv++XiqV5j//KFEv3l7t3N0xOrBC/m9kQ3WCyoEMbd3TVeeYUo?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?f4RayEA+LuF0aAKG1lWSFh+HJ3ErRCiEWIqf7OPf1cn7/dhksMU06cv6rlD9?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?GS5XkYn+h4wzgPPiCuJ7BwZ2VHovuk9e5Logn61YloI9wKTLGwR5uUDd5Ch2?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?NBmKzdN+ZDXZ+9lA9gIkq81vb2rWFA9rDJibVPYfqpb+3qZhq9hGPNVOKODG?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?bc4Ij+pG5jFCelsJ3mODxhwAP2XyUBAI1awLlLfOipeAU0R6FTxKfdfv+Pwv?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?1Ho1js4cOLUYBxea4oPH2BBA+8AJkqy+lvS0fiCdD8D7sE/DxI7Kr38VVRJ+?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?aRoCoNBAq6zUw3XLMrQgn9tdBj3LGi9z2AQKs1oyUVNTjI6jtIF1MiEm31Rg?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?f9hxbJYdjnZY6CsyFyBoU9rW1jPSu/saBWkj8XMmC0s3EIN7loc5JDdI3ZHB?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Mz/r/vRT+sagN7Aix513C8JYDN0WY2fnkRHXnniZcFWolxbHEwQ3tD9HlVDA?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?VXcDhpaf4tFCpo/sThaP9nIPMysBwb/9PWqTXx96hljcPRpJPA0LgSYBwdTz?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?f+kGPrLUQLj7Es3iQdMQ4AmFXQfsUxq19/LNbJi4wNtA1+svxYBw/yFeKxV1?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?9canfI9VUx3ABm0eG/yas3VDSd8/J3kPiI2sdkk7Md0Xh56atmj96iw2wamT?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?gW91dS83Ba6LaK8Sm2V7OD4XULgXaobXnxNd+BDzvWGMI1alrmyE2rEmX6qZ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?s7QeAEE55n0GPNNaSzFPFpYArSj3P+sZHL80CuPpXvJl4TLKlNLOakaA/Upc?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?92ScrnsosGYBRumwfZfFKnEnQXMDr7Ogk9cZp2V8dzJ0PyChkmkO3tDd/GsD?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?1oXHo31OLwlheOSH5LWNWiwZyG3qQeJA5XLcc41tk0C2cSaYrbAkBK+bYu8+?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?FSCR/0d5vAdzbQs2ktPuLqsO4fsPXEZfQ+rMMdwcd2xTjCM2BMm2m7TMdJ/V?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?IoGgLlrw8GEFOTgsbhZn33fTeOhy8f7lYAA0221heC9ryPSI6EuUkngL+eo7?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?qOUvUUm7rxr3LecmvBh3sGxbCpKdeaQzsQVi88KI7YWPEYzr6ztFqW8cyjVW?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Fg=3D=3D?=
X-OriginatorOrg: oracle.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c8dde24d-ead2-4d03-ff18-08dabc4fa716
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CH2PR10MB4166.namprd10.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Nov 2022 21:25:52.0274
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 4e2c6054-71cb-48f1-bd6c-3a9705aca71b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: WC54Q7E/SjKPlvvwJN8F4c1U/kXnxEz+Q4L7EnkU3sCuoOX6My+tS7J3MGdQ4gB0UIaPFievv5YIswSmAQpXr1Omp2dSQZcoIM4SyatCvA8=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PH7PR10MB6483
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard
 engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.545,FMLib:17.11.122.1
 definitions=2022-11-01_10,2022-11-01_02,2022-06-22_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0
 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0
 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1
 engine=8.12.0-2210170000 definitions=main-2211010148
X-Proofpoint-GUID: 8-bl_W03Cp4ZPHoEriM7w825eyI61x28
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 8-bl_W03Cp4ZPHoEriM7w825eyI61x28
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
        DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
        RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE autolearn=ham
        autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 3:10 AM Stephen Brennan
> <stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> With very large d_subdirs lists, iteration can take a long time. Since
>> iteration needs to hold parent->d_lock, this can trigger soft lockups.
>> It would be best to make this iteration sleepable. Since we have the
>> inode locked exclusive, we can drop the parent->d_lock and sleep,
>> holding a reference to a child dentry, and continue iteration once we
>> wake.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com>
>> ---
>>
>
> Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
>
> some comment nits and one fortify suggestion
>
>> Notes:
>>     v3:
>>     - removed if statements around dput()
>>     v2:
>>     - added a check for child->d_parent != alias and retry logic
>>
>>  fs/notify/fsnotify.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/notify/fsnotify.c b/fs/notify/fsnotify.c
>> index ccb8a3a6c522..34e5d18235a7 100644
>> --- a/fs/notify/fsnotify.c
>> +++ b/fs/notify/fsnotify.c
>> @@ -102,10 +102,12 @@ void fsnotify_sb_delete(struct super_block *sb)
>>   * on a child we run all of our children and set a dentry flag saying that the
>>   * parent cares.  Thus when an event happens on a child it can quickly tell
>>   * if there is a need to find a parent and send the event to the parent.
>> + *
>> + * Context: inode locked exclusive
>>   */
>>  static bool __fsnotify_update_children_dentry_flags(struct inode *inode)
>>  {
>> -       struct dentry *alias, *child;
>> +       struct dentry *child, *alias, *last_ref = NULL;
>>         int watched;
>>
>>         if (!S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode))
>> @@ -120,12 +122,37 @@ static bool __fsnotify_update_children_dentry_flags(struct inode *inode)
>>         alias = d_find_any_alias(inode);
>>
>>         /*
>> -        * run all of the children of the original inode and fix their
>> -        * d_flags to indicate parental interest (their parent is the
>> -        * original inode)
>> +        * These lists can get very long, so we may need to sleep during
>> +        * iteration. Normally this would be impossible without a cursor,
>> +        * but since we have the inode locked exclusive, we're guaranteed
>> +        * that the directory won't be modified, so whichever dentry we
>> +        * pick to sleep on won't get moved. So, start a manual iteration
>> +        * over d_subdirs which will allow us to sleep.
>>          */
>>         spin_lock(&alias->d_lock);
>> +retry:
>>         list_for_each_entry(child, &alias->d_subdirs, d_child) {
>> +               if (need_resched()) {
>> +                       /*
>> +                        * We need to hold a reference while we sleep. But when
>> +                        * we wake, dput() could free the dentry, invalidating
>> +                        * the list pointers. We can't look at the list pointers
>> +                        * until we re-lock the parent, and we can't dput() once
>> +                        * we have the parent locked. So the solution is to hold
>> +                        * onto our reference and free it the *next* time we drop
>> +                        * alias->d_lock: either at the end of the function, or
>> +                        * at the time of the next sleep.
>> +                        */
>
> My personal preference would be to move this above if (needed_reschd())
> it is not any less clear when this comment is above the condition
> and less indented will read nicer.

Definitely.

>> +                       dget(child);
>> +                       spin_unlock(&alias->d_lock);
>> +                       dput(last_ref);
>> +                       last_ref = child;
>> +                       cond_resched();
>> +                       spin_lock(&alias->d_lock);
>> +                       if (child->d_parent != alias)
>> +                               goto retry;
>
> Is this expected? If not, then we need a WARN_ON_ONCE().
> Also, I wonder if it would be better to break out and leave
> dentry flags as they are instead of risking some endless
> or very long retry loop?
>
> And how about asserting on unexpected !list_empty(&child->d_child)
> to avoid an endless loop in list_for_each_entry()?

I was trying to think this through as I prepared v3, and ended I up
leaving it as-is, out of a hope that it was doing something helpful. But
I'm pretty sure Al would ask why I believe that this could happen (e.g.
what scenario am I guarding against happening?). I didn't have a clear
idea of what I was guarding against here when I wrote it, which is my
fault. What's necessary is an audit of the places where d_child is
modified, so we can understand the risky places.

What we're doing here is dropping parent->d_lock and going to sleep,
while still having parent->d_inode->i_rwsem held in write mode. The risk
we have is that this particular dentry is removed from this list while
we slept. Checking d_parent seems particularly unhelpful for that, since
what we care far more about is the d_child list pointers. I did a code
audit of all locations where d_child is modified. Here's all I could
identify:

1. dentry_unlist() in fs/dcache.c
2. __d_move() in fs/dcache.c
3. Initialization code in d_alloc() family
4. Cursor code in fs/libfs.c for dcache_readdir()

For case #1, dentry_unlist() is a helper of dentry_kill(). The real guts
of dentry_kill() must happen with parent->d_lock held. Since we get a
reference to the child with parent->d_lock held, we can be confident
that any dentry_kill() which could have been happening concurrently will
bail out after seeing that we got a reference. At least, that's my
reading of the code.

For case #2, __d_move() can (should?) NOT happen, because the caller
must hold the i_mutex (read i_rwsem in write mode), but we are holding
that ourselves.

For case #3, it doesn't matter... it's initialization time, and we
couldn't have gotten a reference to the dentry until the dentry is put
into the tree.

For case #4, the simple_readdir() code should hold the inode rwsem in
read mode, so we have mutual exclusion from this code too. While it's
possible that we could go to sleep holding a reference to a cursor, I
believe that the cursor could not move without holding i_rwsem in read
mode. So we could never wake up to find we've skipped part of the list.

So to summarize, I don't think there's a case where we could actually
expect that d_child pointers get updated while we sleep with a reference
held and the parent i_rwsem held exclusive. Consequently, no place where
d_parent would change from under our feet. So I will remove this check
form the patch.

Thanks,
Stephen