[Devel] Re: [PATCH 06/14] sysfs: Rewrite sysfs_get_dentry

[Tejun Heo]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Currently sysfs_get_dentry is very hairy and requires all kinds
> of locking magic.  This patch rewrites sysfs_get_dentry to
> not use the cached sd->s_dentry, and instead simply lookup
> and create dcache entries.

I wanted to kill sd->s_dentry from the beginning.  The obstacle was
actually the shadow directory support, ironic.

> +	struct qstr name;
> +	struct inode *inode;
>  
> +	parent_dentry = NULL;
> +	dentry = dget(sysfs_sb->s_root);
>  
> +	do {
> +		/* Find the first ancestor I have not looked up */
> +		cur = sd;
> +		while (cur->s_parent != dentry->d_fsdata)
>  			cur = cur->s_parent;
>  
>  		/* look it up */
>  		dput(parent_dentry);

Shouldn't this be done after looking up the child?

> +		parent_dentry = dentry;
> +		name.name = cur->s_name;
> +		name.len = strlen(cur->s_name);
> +		dentry = d_hash_and_lookup(parent_dentry, &name);
> +		if (dentry)
> +			continue;
> +		if (!create)
> +			goto out;

Probably missing dentry = NULL?

> +		dentry = d_alloc(parent_dentry, &name);
> +		if (!dentry) {
> +			dentry = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +			goto out;
>  		}
> +		inode = sysfs_get_inode(cur);
> +		if (!inode) {
>  			dput(dentry);
> +			dentry = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +			goto out;
>  		}
> +		d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
> +		sysfs_attach_dentry(cur, dentry);
> +	} while (cur != sd);
>  
> +out:
> +	dput(parent_dentry);
> +	return dentry;
> +}
>  
> @@ -750,6 +725,12 @@ static struct dentry * sysfs_lookup(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
>  	struct inode *inode;
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&sysfs_mutex);
> +
> +	/* Guard against races with sysfs_get_dentry */
> +	result = d_hash_and_lookup(dentry->d_parent, &dentry->d_name);
> +	if (result)
> +		goto out;
> +

Hmmm... This is tricky but probably better than the previous hairy
sysfs_get_dentry().  I think it would be worthwhile to comment about
creating dentry/inode behind vfs's back in __sysfs_get_dentry().

One thing I'm worried about is that dentry can now be looked up without
holding i_mutex.  In sysfs proper, there's no synchronization problem
but I'm not sure whether we're willing to cross that line set by vfs.
It might come back and bite our asses hard later.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers