On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 1:21 AM NeilBrown <neil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ovl_cleanup_index() takes a lock on the directory and then does a lookup
> and possibly one of two different cleanups.
> This patch narrows the locking to use the _unlocked() versions of the
> lookup and one cleanup, and just takes the lock for the other cleanup.
>
> A subsequent patch will take the lock into the cleanup.
>
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neil@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/overlayfs/util.c | 9 ++++-----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/util.c b/fs/overlayfs/util.c
> index 9ce9fe62ef28..7369193b11ec 100644
> --- a/fs/overlayfs/util.c
> +++ b/fs/overlayfs/util.c
> @@ -1107,21 +1107,20 @@ static void ovl_cleanup_index(struct dentry *dentry)
> goto out;
> }
>
> - inode_lock_nested(dir, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
> - index = ovl_lookup_upper(ofs, name.name, indexdir, name.len);
> + index = ovl_lookup_upper_unlocked(ofs, name.name, indexdir, name.len);
> err = PTR_ERR(index);
> if (IS_ERR(index)) {
> index = NULL;
> } else if (ovl_index_all(dentry->d_sb)) {
> /* Whiteout orphan index to block future open by handle */
> + inode_lock_nested(dir, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
Don't we need to verify that index wasn't moved with
parent_lock(indexdi, index)?
Thanks,
Amir.
> err = ovl_cleanup_and_whiteout(OVL_FS(dentry->d_sb),
> indexdir, index);
> + inode_unlock(dir);
> } else {
> /* Cleanup orphan index entries */
> - err = ovl_cleanup(ofs, dir, index);
> + err = ovl_cleanup_unlocked(ofs, indexdir, index);
> }
> -
> - inode_unlock(dir);
> if (err)
> goto fail;
>
> --
> 2.49.0
>
