Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-71795-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 19:06:41 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@Oracle.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Chuck Lever <cel@kernel.org>,
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org, hughd@google.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, oliver.sang@intel.com,
	feng.tang@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, maple-tree@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, lkp@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 7/7] libfs: Re-arrange locking in offset_iterate_dir()
Message-ID: <20240219180641.hdd5q2vvx5sixuh6@quack3>
References: <170785993027.11135.8830043889278631735.stgit@91.116.238.104.host.secureserver.net>
 <170786028847.11135.14775608389430603086.stgit@91.116.238.104.host.secureserver.net>
 <20240215131638.cxipaxanhidb3pev@quack3>
 <20240215170008.22eisfyzumn5pw3f@revolver>
 <20240215171622.gsbjbjz6vau3emkh@quack3>
 <20240215210742.grjwdqdypvgrpwih@revolver>
 <20240216101546.xjcpzyb3pgf2eqm4@quack3>
 <20240216163318.w66ywrhpr5at46pi@revolver>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240216163318.w66ywrhpr5at46pi@revolver>

On Fri 16-02-24 11:33:18, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> * Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> [240216 05:15]:
> > > If you have other examples you think are unsafe then I can have a look
> > > at them as well.
> > 
> > I'm currently not aware of any but I'll let you know if I find some.
> > Missing xas/mas_pause() seems really easy.
> 
> What if we convert the rcu_read_lock() to a mas_read_lock() or
> xas_read_lock() and we can check to ensure the state isn't being locked
> without being in the 'parked' state (paused or otherwise)?
> 
> mas_read_lock(struct ma_state *mas) {
> 	assert(!mas_active(mas));
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> }
> 
> Would that be a reasonable resolution to your concern?  Unfortunately,
> what was done with the locking in this case would not be detected with
> this change unless the rcu_read_lock() was replaced.  IOW, people could
> still use the rcu_read_lock() and skip the detection.

Yes, I guess this is still better than nothing.

> Doing the same in the mas_unlock() doesn't make as much sense since that
> may be called without the intent to reuse the state at all.  So we'd be
> doing more work than necessary at the end of each loop or use.

Yes, understood.

								Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR