lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] vfs, overlayfs, cachefiles: Combine I_OVL_INUSE and S_KERNEL_FILE and split out no-remove
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 5:12 PM David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Amir,
>
> How about this as a set of patches to do what you suggest[1] and hoist the
> handler functions for I_OVL_INUSE into common code and rename the flag to
> I_EXCL_INUSE. This can then be shared with cachefiles - allowing me to get
> rid of S_KERNEL_FILE.
>

They look like what I had in mind.
Unfortunately, I had forgotten about another use that ovl makes of the flag
(see comment on patch 1/5). I'd made a suggestion on how to get rid of that use
case, but I hope this won't complicate things too much for you.

> I did split out the functionality for preventing file/dir removal to a
> separate flag, I_NO_REMOVE, so that it's not tied to I_EXCL_INUSE in case
> overlayfs doesn't want to use it. The downside to that, though is that it
> requires a separate locking of i_lock to set/clear it.
>
> I also added four general tracepoints to log successful lock/unlock,
> failure to lock and a bad unlock. The lock tracepoints log which driver
> asked for the lock and all tracepoints allow the driver to log an arbitrary
> reference number (in cachefiles's case this is the object debug ID).
>
> Questions:
>
> (1) Should it be using a flag in i_state or a flag in i_flags? I'm not
> sure what the difference is really.

Me neither.

>
> (2) Do we really need to take i_lock when testing I_EXCL_INUSE? Would
> READ_ONCE() suffice?
>

For ovl_is_inuse() I think READ_ONCE() should suffice.

Thanks,
Amir.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-31 17:29    [W:0.077 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site