Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-41977-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: Sun, 28 Jan 2024 17:01:25 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers
 <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 Linux Trace Devel <linux-trace-devel@vger.kernel.org>, Christian Brauner
 <brauner@kernel.org>, Ajay Kaher <ajay.kaher@broadcom.com>, Geert
 Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, linux-fsdevel
 <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eventfs: Have inodes have unique inode numbers
Message-ID: <20240128170125.7d51aa8f@rorschach.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiWo9Ern_MKkWJ-6MEh6fUtBtwU3avQRm=N51VsHevzQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240126150209.367ff402@gandalf.local.home>
	<CAHk-=wgZEHwFRgp2Q8_-OtpCtobbuFPBmPTZ68qN3MitU-ub=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20240126162626.31d90da9@gandalf.local.home>
	<CAHk-=wj8WygQNgoHerp-aKyCwFxHeyKMguQszVKyJfi-=Yfadw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHk-=whNfNti-mn6vhL-v-WZnn0i7ZAbwSf_wNULJeyanhPOgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHk-=wj+DsZZ=2iTUkJ-Nojs9fjYMvPs1NuoM3yK7aTDtJfPYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20240128151542.6efa2118@rorschach.local.home>
	<CAHk-=whKJ6dzQJX27gvL4Xug5bFRKW7_Cx4XpngMKmWxOtb+Qg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHk-=wiWo9Ern_MKkWJ-6MEh6fUtBtwU3avQRm=N51VsHevzQg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 13:08:55 -0800
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 at 12:53, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Now, the RCU delay may be needed if the lookup of said structure
> > happens under RCU, but no, saying "I use SRCU to make sure the
> > lifetime is at least X" is just broken.  
> 
> Put another way, the only reason for any RCU should be that you don't
> use locking at lookup, and the normal lookup routine should follow a
> pattern something like this:
> 
>     rcu_read_lock();
>     entry = find_entry(...);
>     if (entry && !atomic_inc_not_zero(&entry->refcount))
>         entry = NULL;
>     rcu_read_unlock();
> 
> and the freeing should basically follow a pattern like
> 
>     if (atomic_dec_and_test(&entry->refcount))
>         rcu_free(entry);

Basically you are saying that when the ei is created, it should have a
ref count of 1. If the lookup happens and does the
atomic_inc_not_zero() it will only increment if the ref count is not 0
(which is basically equivalent to is_freed).

And then we can have deletion of the object happen in both where the
caller (kprobes) deletes the directory and in the final iput()
reference (can I use iput and not the d_release()?), that it does the
same as well.

Where whatever sees the refcount of zero calls rcu_free?

-- Steve