Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-19404-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 20:19:34 +0900
From: asmadeus@codewreck.org
To: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, v9fs@lists.linux.dev,
	linux_oss@crudebyte.com, rminnich@gmail.com, lucho@ionkov.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/9p: fix inode nlink accounting
Message-ID: <ZZvaRt4T-RjOBoS2@codewreck.org>
References: <20240107-fix-nlink-handling-v1-1-8b1f65ebc9b2@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240107-fix-nlink-handling-v1-1-8b1f65ebc9b2@kernel.org>

Eric Van Hensbergen wrote on Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 07:07:52PM +0000:
> I was running some regressions and noticed a (race-y) kernel warning that
> happens when nlink becomes less than zero.  Looking through the code
> it looks like we aren't good about protecting the inode lock when
> manipulating nlink and some code that was added several years ago to
> protect against bugs in underlying file systems nlink handling didn't
> look quite right either.  I took a look at what NFS was doing and tried to
> follow similar approaches in the 9p code.

I was about to say the set/inc/etc_nlink helpers could probably just be
using atomic (there's an atomic_dec_if_postive that we could have used
for the v9fs_dec_count warning), but this isn't our code so not much to
do about that -- I agree it needs a lock.

I didn't take the time to check if you missed any, but it won't be worse
than what we have right now:
Acked-by: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>

-- 
Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus