lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH V2 09/12] fs: Prevent mode change if file is mmap'ed
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 05:30:04PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 04:46:10PM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 02:22:12PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 11:29:39AM -0800, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> > > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> > > >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c
> > > > index bc3654fe3b5d..1ab0906c6c7f 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c
> > > > @@ -1200,6 +1200,14 @@ xfs_ioctl_setattr_dax_invalidate(
> > > > goto out_unlock;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * If there is a mapping in place we must remain in our current mode.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (atomic64_read(&inode->i_mapped)) {
> > >
> > > Urk, should we really be messing around with the address space
> > > internals?
> >
> > I contemplated a function call instead of checking i_mapped directly? Is that
> > what you mean?
>
> Yeah. Abstracting the details just enough that filesystems don't have
> to know that i_mapped is atomic64 etc.

Done.

>
> >
> > >
> > > > + error = -EBUSY;
> > > > + goto out_unlock;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > error = filemap_write_and_wait(inode->i_mapping);
> > > > if (error)
> > > > goto out_unlock;
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> > > > index 631f11d6246e..6e7dc626b657 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> > > > @@ -740,6 +740,7 @@ struct inode {
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > void *i_private; /* fs or device private pointer */
> > > > + atomic64_t i_mapped;
> > >
> > > I would have expected to find this in struct address_space since the
> > > mapping count is a function of the address space, right?
> >
> > I suppose but the only external call (above) would be passing an inode. So to
> > me it seemed better here.
>
> But the number of memory mappings reflects the state of the address
> space, not the inode. Or maybe put another way, if I were an mm
> developer I would not expect to look in struct inode for mm state.

This is a good point...

>
> static inline bool inode_has_mappings(struct inode *inode)
> {
> return atomic64_read(&inode->i_mapping->mapcount) > 0;
> }
>
> OTOH if there exist other mm developers who /do/ find that storing the
> mmap count in struct inode is more logical, please let me know. :)

... My thinking was that the number of mappings does not matters to the mm
system... However, I'm starting to think you are correct... ;-)

I've made a note of it and we will see what others think.

Ira

>
> --D
>
> > Ira
> >
> > >
> > > --D
> > >

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-14 18:55    [W:0.069 / U:7.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site