[CC vfs maintainers who were not personally CCed on your patches
and changed the subject to focus on the topic at hand.]
On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 2:13 AM NeilBrown <neil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2025, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 1:21 AM NeilBrown <neil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > If ovl_copy_up_data() fails the error is not immediately handled but the
> > > code continues on to call ovl_start_write() and lock_rename(),
> > > presumably because both of these locks are needed for the cleanup.
> > > On then (if the lock was successful) is the error checked.
> > >
> > > This makes the code a little hard to follow and could be fragile.
> > >
> > > This patch changes to handle the error immediately. A new
> > > ovl_cleanup_unlocked() is created which takes the required directory
> > > lock (though it doesn't take the write lock on the filesystem). This
> > > will be used extensively in later patches.
> > >
> > > In general we need to check the parent is still correct after taking the
> > > lock (as ovl_copy_up_workdir() does after a successful lock_rename()) so
> > > that is included in ovl_cleanup_unlocked() using new lock_parent() and
> > > unlock_parent() calls (it is planned to move this API into VFS code
> > > eventually, though in a slightly different form).
> >
> > Since you are not planning to move it to VFS with this name
> > AND since I assume you want to merge this ovl cleanup prior
> > to the rest of of patches, please use an ovl helper without
> > the ovl_ namespace prefix and you have a typo above
> > its parent_lock() not lock_parent().
>
> I think you mean "with" rather than "without" ?
Yeh.
> But you separately say you would much rather this go into the VFS code
> first.
On second thought. no strong feeling either way.
Using an internal ovl helper without ovl_ prefix is not good practice,
but I can also live with that for a short while, or at the very least
I am willing to defer the decision to the vfs maintainers.
Pasting the helper here for context:
> > > +
> > > +int parent_lock(struct dentry *parent, struct dentry *child)
> > > +{
> > > + inode_lock_nested(parent->d_inode, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
> > > + if (!child || child->d_parent == parent)
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + inode_unlock(parent->d_inode);
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +}
FWIW, as I mentioned before, this helper could be factored out
of the first part of lock_rename_child().
>
> For me a core issue is how the patches will land. If you are happy for
> these patches (once they are all approved of course) to land via the vfs
> tree, then I can certainly submit the new interfaces in VFS code first,
> then the ovl cleanups that use them.
>
> However I assumed that they were so substantial that you would want them
> to land via an ovl tree. In that case I wouldn't want to have to wait
> for a couple of new interfaces to land in VFS before you could take the
> cleanups.
>
> What process do you imagine?
>
Whatever process we choose is going to be collaborated with the vfs
maintainers.
Right now, there are a few ovl patches on Cristian's vfs-6.17.file
branch and zero patches on overlayfs-next branch.
What I would like to do is personally apply and test your patches
(based on vfs-6.17.file).
Then I will either send a PR to Christian before the merge window
or send the PR to Linux during the merge window and after vfs-6.17.file
PR lands.
Within these options we have plenty of freedom to decide if we want
to keep parent_lock/unlock internal ovl helpers or vfs helpers.
It's really up to the vfs maintainers.
> >
> > And apropos lock helper names, at the tip of your branch
Reference for people who just joined:
https://github.com/neilbrown/linux/commits/pdirops
> > the lock helpers used in ovl_cleanup() are named:
> > lock_and_check_dentry()/dentry_unlock()
> >
> > I have multiple comments on your choice of names for those helpers:
> > 1. Please use a consistent name pattern for lock/unlock.
> > The pattern <obj-or-lock-type>_{lock,unlock}_* is far more common
> > then the pattern lock_<obj-or-lock-type> in the kernel, but at least
> > be consistent with dentry_lock_and_check() or better yet
> > parent_lock() and later parent_lock_get_child()
>
> dentry_lock_and_check() does make sense - thanks.
>
> > 2. dentry_unlock() is a very strange name for a helper that
> > unlocks the parent. The fact that you document what it does
> > in Kernel-doc does not stop people reading the code using it
> > from being confused and writing bugs.
>
> The plan is that dentry_lookup_and_lock() will only lock the parent during a
> short interim period. Maybe there will be one full release where that
> is the case. As soon a practical (and we know this sort of large change
> cannot move quickly) dentry_lookup_and_lock() etc will only lock the
> dentry, not the directory. The directory will only get locked
> immediately before call the inode_operations - for filesystems that
> haven't opted out. Thus patches in my git tree don't full reflect this
> yet (Though the hints are there are the end) but that is my current
> plan, based on most recent feedback from Al Viro.
>
> > 3. Why not call it parent_unlock() like I suggested and like you
> > used in this patch set and why not introduce it in VFS to begin with?
> > For that matter parent_unlock_{put,return}_child() is more clear IMO.
>
> Because, as I say about, it is only incidentally about the parent. It is
> primarily about the dentry.
When you have a helper named dentry_unlock() that unlocks the
parent inode, it's not good naming IMO.
When you have a helper called parent_unlock_put_child()
or dentry_put_and_unlock_parent() there is no ambiguity about
the subject of the operations.
>
> > 4. The name dentry_unlock_rename(&rd) also does not balance nicely with
> > the name lookup_and_lock_rename(&rd) and has nothing to do with the
> > dentry_ prefix. How about lookup_done_and_unlock_rename(&rd)?
>
> The is probably my least favourite name.... I did try some "done"
> variants (following one from done_path_create()). But if felt it should
> be "done_$function-that-started-this-interaction()" and that resulted in
> done_dentry_lookup_and_lock()
> or similar, and having "lock" in an unlock function was weird.
> Your "done_and_unlock" addresses this but results and long name that
> feels clumsy to me.
>
> I chose the dentry_ prefix before I decided to pass the renamedata
> around (and I'm really happy about that latter choice). So
> reconsidering the name is definitely appropriate.
> Maybe renamedata_lock() and renamedata_unlock() ???
> renamedata_lock() can do lookups as well as locking, but maybe that is
> implied by the presense of old_last and new_last in renamedata...
>
My biggest complaint was about the non balanced lock/unlock name pattern.
renamedata_lock/unlock() is fine by me and aligns very well with existing
lock helper name patterns.
Thanks,
Amir.
