From patchwork Tue Apr 19 18:22:37 2022 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Jeff Layton X-Patchwork-Id: 12819296 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 997EBC433EF for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:31:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1352117AbiDSSeY (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2022 14:34:24 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60556 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1357438AbiDSSc6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2022 14:32:58 -0400 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [145.40.68.75]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8EE8427C8; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 11:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69843B818FE; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:22:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BAE4DC385A5; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:22:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1650392559; bh=Bj67+NC5/w4hW+djueoYU3sQv3W0hf+L1Lfue7THGy4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=DMxSlWQLAklOxnjN9ci7+rAyWTwSVXqQ+DmW2tGycghmhlQ5VyKiBtwuvd2nxkmL+ cifNwUPYzr0UOZdLSAUsS/gK+Fvfb0VDfeLJS/Ke8ID9CrzHxWDdXyGM1iBroq78zq nFFKaR9Yoxpkc88JZBgGmC3Day0eeiQyJRwBhhxpuGP+cCqXfhuYAXkZlRQJik/RMs 52QJPtYm62I8KLjFZGhTXVaf5fBlMk9it0PtJg2yd/p7RvpmNDHmLK4QgAIdlqPadD jGYkghl/ULVDMhAfHHLPUMauy7nIUjegUfleD13nGXSmSRNuOK0zyq0wyUPJjcOgqE uxfR/LhTVWxMw== From: Jeff Layton To: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner Subject: [PATCH resend] fs: change test in inode_insert5 for adding to the sb list Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 14:22:37 -0400 Message-Id: <20220419182237.62749-1-jlayton@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.35.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org The inode_insert5 currently looks at I_CREATING to decide whether to insert the inode into the sb list. This test is a bit ambiguous though as I_CREATING state is not directly related to that list. This test is also problematic for some upcoming ceph changes to add fscrypt support. We need to be able to allocate an inode using new_inode and insert it into the hash later if we end up using it, and doing that now means that we double add it and corrupt the list. What we really want to know in this test is whether the inode is already in its superblock list, and then add it if it isn't. Have it test for list_empty instead and ensure that we always initialize the list by doing it in inode_init_once. It's only ever removed from the list with list_del_init, so that should be sufficient. Suggested-by: Al Viro Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton --- fs/inode.c | 11 ++++++++--- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) Hi Al, I'm going to eventually need this in order to start merging the ceph-fscrypt patch series. Could you take this into your tree soon and feed it into -next? I don't really expect any regressions from this, but it'd be good to be sure. Thanks, Jeff diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c index 9d9b422504d1..743420a55e5f 100644 --- a/fs/inode.c +++ b/fs/inode.c @@ -422,6 +422,7 @@ void inode_init_once(struct inode *inode) INIT_LIST_HEAD(&inode->i_io_list); INIT_LIST_HEAD(&inode->i_wb_list); INIT_LIST_HEAD(&inode->i_lru); + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&inode->i_sb_list); __address_space_init_once(&inode->i_data); i_size_ordered_init(inode); } @@ -1021,7 +1022,6 @@ struct inode *new_inode_pseudo(struct super_block *sb) spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); inode->i_state = 0; spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&inode->i_sb_list); } return inode; } @@ -1165,7 +1165,6 @@ struct inode *inode_insert5(struct inode *inode, unsigned long hashval, { struct hlist_head *head = inode_hashtable + hash(inode->i_sb, hashval); struct inode *old; - bool creating = inode->i_state & I_CREATING; again: spin_lock(&inode_hash_lock); @@ -1199,7 +1198,13 @@ struct inode *inode_insert5(struct inode *inode, unsigned long hashval, inode->i_state |= I_NEW; hlist_add_head_rcu(&inode->i_hash, head); spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); - if (!creating) + + /* + * Add it to the list if it wasn't already in, + * e.g. new_inode. We hold I_NEW at this point, so + * we should be safe to test i_sb_list locklessly. + */ + if (list_empty(&inode->i_sb_list)) inode_sb_list_add(inode); unlock: spin_unlock(&inode_hash_lock);