linux.git/fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c, branch v4.19

cachefiles: Fix refcounting bug in backing-file read monitoring

2018-07-25T13:49:00+00:00

cachefiles_read_waiter() has the right to access a 'monitor' object by
virtue of being called under the waitqueue lock for one of the pages in its
purview.  However, it has no ref on that monitor object or on the
associated operation.

What it is allowed to do is to move the monitor object to the operation's
to_do list, but once it drops the work_lock, it's actually no longer
permitted to access that object.  However, it is trying to enqueue the
retrieval operation for processing - but it can only do this via a pointer
in the monitor object, something it shouldn't be doing.

If it doesn't enqueue the operation, the operation may not get processed.
If the order is flipped so that the enqueue is first, then it's possible
for the work processor to look at the to_do list before the monitor is
enqueued upon it.

Fix this by getting a ref on the operation so that we can trust that it
will still be there once we've added the monitor to the to_do list and
dropped the work_lock.  The op can then be enqueued after the lock is
dropped.

The bug can manifest in one of a couple of ways.  The first manifestation
looks like:

 FS-Cache:
 FS-Cache: Assertion failed
 FS-Cache: 6 == 5 is false
 ------------[ cut here ]------------
 kernel BUG at fs/fscache/operation.c:494!
 RIP: 0010:fscache_put_operation+0x1e3/0x1f0
 ...
 fscache_op_work_func+0x26/0x50
 process_one_work+0x131/0x290
 worker_thread+0x45/0x360
 kthread+0xf8/0x130
 ? create_worker+0x190/0x190
 ? kthread_cancel_work_sync+0x10/0x10
 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

This is due to the operation being in the DEAD state (6) rather than
INITIALISED, COMPLETE or CANCELLED (5) because it's already passed through
fscache_put_operation().

The bug can also manifest like the following:

 kernel BUG at fs/fscache/operation.c:69!
 ...
    [exception RIP: fscache_enqueue_operation+246]
 ...
 #7 [ffff883fff083c10] fscache_enqueue_operation at ffffffffa0b793c6
 #8 [ffff883fff083c28] cachefiles_read_waiter at ffffffffa0b15a48
 #9 [ffff883fff083c48] __wake_up_common at ffffffff810af028

I'm not entirely certain as to which is line 69 in Lei's kernel, so I'm not
entirely clear which assertion failed.

Fixes: 9ae326a69004 ("CacheFiles: A cache that backs onto a mounted filesystem")
Reported-by: Lei Xue 
Reported-by: Vegard Nossum 
Reported-by: Anthony DeRobertis 
Reported-by: NeilBrown 
Reported-by: Daniel Axtens 
Reported-by: Kiran Kumar Modukuri 
Signed-off-by: David Howells 
Reviewed-by: Daniel Axtens

fscache, cachefiles: Fix checker warnings

2018-04-04T12:41:26+00:00

Fix a couple of checker warnings in fscache and cachefiles:

 (1) fscache_n_op_requeue is never used, so get rid of it.

 (2) cachefiles_uncache_page() is passed in a lock that it releases, so
     this needs annotating.

Signed-off-by: David Howells

mm: remove __GFP_COLD

2017-11-16T02:21:06+00:00

As the page free path makes no distinction between cache hot and cold
pages, there is no real useful ordering of pages in the free list that
allocation requests can take advantage of.  Juding from the users of
__GFP_COLD, it is likely that a number of them are the result of copying
other sites instead of actually measuring the impact.  Remove the
__GFP_COLD parameter which simplifies a number of paths in the page
allocator.

This is potentially controversial but bear in mind that the size of the
per-cpu pagelists versus modern cache sizes means that the whole per-cpu
list can often fit in the L3 cache.  Hence, there is only a potential
benefit for microbenchmarks that alloc/free pages in a tight loop.  It's
even worse when THP is taken into account which has little or no chance
of getting a cache-hot page as the per-cpu list is bypassed and the
zeroing of multiple pages will thrash the cache anyway.

The truncate microbenchmarks are not shown as this patch affects the
allocation path and not the free path.  A page fault microbenchmark was
tested but it showed no sigificant difference which is not surprising
given that the __GFP_COLD branches are a miniscule percentage of the
fault path.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171018075952.10627-9-mgorman@techsingularity.net
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman 
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka 
Cc: Andi Kleen 
Cc: Dave Chinner 
Cc: Dave Hansen 
Cc: Jan Kara 
Cc: Johannes Weiner 
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

mm, pagevec: remove cold parameter for pagevecs

2017-11-16T02:21:06+00:00

Every pagevec_init user claims the pages being released are hot even in
cases where it is unlikely the pages are hot.  As no one cares about the
hotness of pages being released to the allocator, just ditch the
parameter.

No performance impact is expected as the overhead is marginal.  The
parameter is removed simply because it is a bit stupid to have a useless
parameter copied everywhere.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171018075952.10627-6-mgorman@techsingularity.net
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman 
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka 
Cc: Andi Kleen 
Cc: Dave Chinner 
Cc: Dave Hansen 
Cc: Jan Kara 
Cc: Johannes Weiner 
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming

2017-06-20T10:19:14+00:00

So I've noticed a number of instances where it was not obvious from the
code whether ->task_list was for a wait-queue head or a wait-queue entry.

Furthermore, there's a number of wait-queue users where the lists are
not for 'tasks' but other entities (poll tables, etc.), in which case
the 'task_list' name is actively confusing.

To clear this all up, name the wait-queue head and entry list structure
fields unambiguously:

	struct wait_queue_head::task_list	=> ::head
	struct wait_queue_entry::task_list	=> ::entry

For example, this code:

	rqw->wait.task_list.next != &wait->task_list

... is was pretty unclear (to me) what it's doing, while now it's written this way:

	rqw->wait.head.next != &wait->entry

... which makes it pretty clear that we are iterating a list until we see the head.

Other examples are:

	list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->task_list, task_list) {
	list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.task_list, task_list) {

... where it's unclear (to me) what we are iterating, and during review it's
hard to tell whether it's trying to walk a wait-queue entry (which would be
a bug), while now it's written as:

	list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->head, entry) {
	list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.head, entry) {

Cc: Linus Torvalds 
Cc: Peter Zijlstra 
Cc: Thomas Gleixner 
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

sched/wait: Rename wait_queue_t => wait_queue_entry_t

2017-06-20T10:18:27+00:00

Rename:

	wait_queue_t		=>	wait_queue_entry_t

'wait_queue_t' was always a slight misnomer: its name implies that it's a "queue",
but in reality it's a queue *entry*. The 'real' queue is the wait queue head,
which had to carry the name.

Start sorting this out by renaming it to 'wait_queue_entry_t'.

This also allows the real structure name 'struct __wait_queue' to
lose its double underscore and become 'struct wait_queue_entry',
which is the more canonical nomenclature for such data types.

Cc: Linus Torvalds 
Cc: Peter Zijlstra 
Cc: Thomas Gleixner 
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

mm, fs: get rid of PAGE_CACHE_* and page_cache_{get,release} macros

2016-04-04T17:41:08+00:00

PAGE_CACHE_{SIZE,SHIFT,MASK,ALIGN} macros were introduced *long* time
ago with promise that one day it will be possible to implement page
cache with bigger chunks than PAGE_SIZE.

This promise never materialized.  And unlikely will.

We have many places where PAGE_CACHE_SIZE assumed to be equal to
PAGE_SIZE.  And it's constant source of confusion on whether
PAGE_CACHE_* or PAGE_* constant should be used in a particular case,
especially on the border between fs and mm.

Global switching to PAGE_CACHE_SIZE != PAGE_SIZE would cause to much
breakage to be doable.

Let's stop pretending that pages in page cache are special.  They are
not.

The changes are pretty straight-forward:

 -  << (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT) -> ;

 -  >> (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT) -> ;

 - PAGE_CACHE_{SIZE,SHIFT,MASK,ALIGN} -> PAGE_{SIZE,SHIFT,MASK,ALIGN};

 - page_cache_get() -> get_page();

 - page_cache_release() -> put_page();

This patch contains automated changes generated with coccinelle using
script below.  For some reason, coccinelle doesn't patch header files.
I've called spatch for them manually.

The only adjustment after coccinelle is revert of changes to
PAGE_CAHCE_ALIGN definition: we are going to drop it later.

There are few places in the code where coccinelle didn't reach.  I'll
fix them manually in a separate patch.  Comments and documentation also
will be addressed with the separate patch.

virtual patch

@@
expression E;
@@
- E << (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT)
+ E

@@
expression E;
@@
- E >> (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT)
+ E

@@
@@
- PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT
+ PAGE_SHIFT

@@
@@
- PAGE_CACHE_SIZE
+ PAGE_SIZE

@@
@@
- PAGE_CACHE_MASK
+ PAGE_MASK

@@
expression E;
@@
- PAGE_CACHE_ALIGN(E)
+ PAGE_ALIGN(E)

@@
expression E;
@@
- page_cache_get(E)
+ get_page(E)

@@
expression E;
@@
- page_cache_release(E)
+ put_page(E)

Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov 
Acked-by: Michal Hocko 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

FS-Cache: Add missing initialization of ret in cachefiles_write_page()

2015-11-17T01:38:43+00:00

fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c: In function ‘cachefiles_write_page’:
fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c:882: warning: ‘ret’ may be used uninitialized in
this function

If the jump to label "error" is taken, "ret" will indeed be
uninitialized, and random stack data may be printed by the debug code.

Fixes: 102f4d900c9c8f5e ("FS-Cache: Handle a write to the page immediately beyond the EOF marker")
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven 
Signed-off-by: David Howells 
Signed-off-by: Al Viro

FS-Cache: Handle a write to the page immediately beyond the EOF marker

2015-11-11T07:11:02+00:00

Handle a write being requested to the page immediately beyond the EOF
marker on a cache object.  Currently this gets an assertion failure in
CacheFiles because the EOF marker is used there to encode information about
a partial page at the EOF - which could lead to an unknown blank spot in
the file if we extend the file over it.

The problem is actually in fscache where we check the index of the page
being written against store_limit.  store_limit is set to the number of
pages that we're allowed to store by fscache_set_store_limit() - which
means it's one more than the index of the last page we're allowed to store.
The problem is that we permit writing to a page with an index _equal_ to
the store limit - when we should reject that case.

Whilst we're at it, change the triggered assertion in CacheFiles to just
return -ENOBUFS instead.

The assertion failure looks something like this:

CacheFiles: Assertion failed
1000 < 7b1 is false
------------[ cut here ]------------
kernel BUG at fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c:962!
...
RIP: 0010:[]  [] cachefiles_write_page+0x273/0x2d0 [cachefiles]

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v2.6.31+; earlier - that + backport of a17754f (at least)
Signed-off-by: David Howells 
Signed-off-by: Al Viro

cachefiles: perform test on s_blocksize when opening cache file.

2015-11-11T07:08:17+00:00

cachefiles requires that s_blocksize in the cache is not greater than
PAGE_SIZE, and performs the check every time a block is accessed.

Move the test to the place where the file is "opened", where other
file-validity tests are performed.

Signed-off-by: NeilBrown 
Signed-off-by: David Howells 
Signed-off-by: Al Viro