Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 27 Aug 2022 05:12:45 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Daire Byrne <daire@dneg.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] VFS: support concurrent renames.
Message-ID: <YwmZveDR7Igur0m0@ZenIV>
References: <166147828344.25420.13834885828450967910.stgit@noble.brown>
 <166147984375.25420.13018600986239729815.stgit@noble.brown>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <166147984375.25420.13018600986239729815.stgit@noble.brown>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 12:10:43PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> Allow object can now be renamed from or to a directory in which a create
> or unlink is concurrently happening.
> 
> Two or more renames with the one directory can also be concurrent.
> s_vfs_rename_mutex still serialises lookups for cross-directory renames,
> but the renames themselves can proceed concurrently.

Wha...?  <checks>
Not true, fortunately - you *do* hold ->s_vfs_rename_mutex over the
rename itself.  If not for that, it would be utterly broken.
And I don't care for NFS server rejecting that - we are *NOT* taking
loop prevention logics into every filesystem.  It's highly non-local
and trying to handle it with your per-dentry flags is going to be
painful as hell, if at all possible.

> +	if (d1 < d2) {
> +		ok1 = d_lock_update_nested(d1, p1, last1, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
> +		ok2 = d_lock_update_nested(d2, p2, last2, I_MUTEX_PARENT2);
> +	} else {
> +		ok2 = d_lock_update_nested(d2, p2, last2, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
> +		ok1 = d_lock_update_nested(d1, p1, last1, I_MUTEX_PARENT2);
> +	}

Explain, please.  What's that ordering about?