mbox series

[0/3] CONFIG_VFS_DEBUG at last

Message ID 20250205183839.395081-1-mjguzik@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series CONFIG_VFS_DEBUG at last | expand

Message

Mateusz Guzik Feb. 5, 2025, 6:38 p.m. UTC
This adds a super basic version just to get the mechanism going and
adds sample usage.

The macro set is incomplete (e.g., lack of locking macros) and
dump_inode routine fails to dump any state yet, to be implemented(tm).

I think despite the primitive state this is complete enough to start
sprinkling warns as necessary.

Mateusz Guzik (3):
  vfs: add initial support for CONFIG_VFS_DEBUG
  vfs: catch invalid modes in may_open
  vfs: use the new debug macros in inode_set_cached_link()

 fs/namei.c               |  2 ++
 include/linux/fs.h       | 16 +++----------
 include/linux/vfsdebug.h | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 lib/Kconfig.debug        |  9 ++++++++
 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 include/linux/vfsdebug.h

Comments

Mateusz Guzik Feb. 5, 2025, 6:57 p.m. UTC | #1
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:38 PM Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This adds a super basic version just to get the mechanism going and
> adds sample usage.
>
> The macro set is incomplete (e.g., lack of locking macros) and
> dump_inode routine fails to dump any state yet, to be implemented(tm).
>
> I think despite the primitive state this is complete enough to start
> sprinkling warns as necessary.
>
> Mateusz Guzik (3):
>   vfs: add initial support for CONFIG_VFS_DEBUG
>   vfs: catch invalid modes in may_open
>   vfs: use the new debug macros in inode_set_cached_link()
>
>  fs/namei.c               |  2 ++
>  include/linux/fs.h       | 16 +++----------
>  include/linux/vfsdebug.h | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  lib/Kconfig.debug        |  9 ++++++++
>  4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 include/linux/vfsdebug.h
>
> --
> 2.43.0
>

The produced warn is ugly as sin:\, for example for that bad size:
[   51.433206] VFS_WARN_ON_INODE(__builtin_choose_expr((sizeof(int) ==
sizeof(*(8 ? ((void *)((long)(__builtin_strlen(link)) * 0l)) : (int
*)8))), __builtin_strlen(link), __fortify_strlen(link)) != linklen)
failed for inode ff32f7c350c8aec8

maybe there is a way to work it around, the code is literally lifted
out of mmdebug.h so they presumably have the same problem

apart from that the assert in may_open is backwards, the code normally
is not reached.

anyhow I expect to send a v2, but will wait for feedback before I do
Christian Brauner Feb. 6, 2025, 9:46 a.m. UTC | #2
On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 07:57:07PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:38 PM Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This adds a super basic version just to get the mechanism going and
> > adds sample usage.
> >
> > The macro set is incomplete (e.g., lack of locking macros) and
> > dump_inode routine fails to dump any state yet, to be implemented(tm).
> >
> > I think despite the primitive state this is complete enough to start
> > sprinkling warns as necessary.
> >
> > Mateusz Guzik (3):
> >   vfs: add initial support for CONFIG_VFS_DEBUG
> >   vfs: catch invalid modes in may_open
> >   vfs: use the new debug macros in inode_set_cached_link()
> >
> >  fs/namei.c               |  2 ++
> >  include/linux/fs.h       | 16 +++----------
> >  include/linux/vfsdebug.h | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  lib/Kconfig.debug        |  9 ++++++++
> >  4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 include/linux/vfsdebug.h
> >
> > --
> > 2.43.0
> >
> 
> The produced warn is ugly as sin:\, for example for that bad size:
> [   51.433206] VFS_WARN_ON_INODE(__builtin_choose_expr((sizeof(int) ==
> sizeof(*(8 ? ((void *)((long)(__builtin_strlen(link)) * 0l)) : (int
> *)8))), __builtin_strlen(link), __fortify_strlen(link)) != linklen)
> failed for inode ff32f7c350c8aec8
> 
> maybe there is a way to work it around, the code is literally lifted
> out of mmdebug.h so they presumably have the same problem
> 
> apart from that the assert in may_open is backwards, the code normally
> is not reached.
> 
> anyhow I expect to send a v2, but will wait for feedback before I do

I think it is overdue that we do something like this. Being able to be
more liberal with _meaningful_ asserts can help us in the long run.
So I'm supportive.