Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-19682-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240107-fix-nlink-handling-v1-1-8b1f65ebc9b2@kernel.org>
 <ZZvaRt4T-RjOBoS2@codewreck.org> <8004884.rDQMAZhJ5Z@silver>
In-Reply-To: <8004884.rDQMAZhJ5Z@silver>
From: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 08:12:24 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFkjPTn0HFnnZk8rt7m+mfLyPofMxZC6EzaoFChoyRVdVnwM6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/9p: fix inode nlink accounting
To: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
Cc: asmadeus@codewreck.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, v9fs@lists.linux.dev, 
	rminnich@gmail.com, lucho@ionkov.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 6:08=E2=80=AFAM Christian Schoenebeck
<linux_oss@crudebyte.com> wrote:
>
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 12:19:34 PM CET asmadeus@codewreck.org wrote:
> > 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 tri=
ed 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 wors=
e
> > than what we have right now:
> > Acked-by: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
>
> That's actually a good point. For these tasks atomic inc/sub/etc are usua=
lly
> used instead of locks.
>
> I would at least add local wrapper functions that would do these spinlock=
s for
> us.
>

I'm good with adding local wrapper functions,  I imagine these aren't
used in the kernel because for regular file-systems maybe you want the
warning that your inode link accounting is wrong.
I suppose we could be naughty and not use the kernel functions (which
themselves are basically wrappers).

      -eric