Re: [PATCH 15/19] vfs: Add superblock notifications [ver #16]
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Date: 2020-02-21 14:24:05
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, lkml
Jann Horn [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
+ if (!s->s_watchers) {READ_ONCE() ?
I'm not sure it matters. It can only be set once, and the next time we read it we're inside the lock. And at this point, I don't actually dereference it, and if it's non-NULL, it's not going to change.
quoted
+ ret = add_watch_to_object(watch, s->s_watchers); + if (ret == 0) { + spin_lock(&sb_lock); + s->s_count++; + spin_unlock(&sb_lock);Where is the corresponding decrement of s->s_count? I'm guessing that it should be in the ->release_watch() handler, except that there isn't one...
Um. Good question. I think this should do the job:
static void sb_release_watch(struct watch *watch)
{
put_super(watch->private);
}
And this then has to be set later:
init_watch_list(wlist, sb_release_watch);
quoted
+ } else { + ret = -EBADSLT; + if (READ_ONCE(s->s_watchers)) {(Nit: I don't get why you do a lockless check here before taking the lock - it'd be more straightforward to take the lock first, and it's not like you want to optimize for the case where someone calls sys_watch_sb() with invalid arguments...)
Fair enough. I'll remove it.
quoted
+#ifdef CONFIG_SB_NOTIFICATIONS + if (unlikely(s->s_watchers)) {READ_ONCE() ?
Shouldn't matter. It's only read once and then a decision is made on it immediately thereafter. And if it's non-NULL, the value cannot change thereafter. David