Re: [PATCH] autofs4 needs to force fail return revalidate

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:18:15 +0800
Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:

> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> I didn't get any adverse (or other feedback) for this patch after posting
> an RFC to LKML so here it is.
> 
> For a long time now I have had a problem with not being able to return a 
> lookup failure on an existsing directory. In autofs this corresponds to a 
> mount failure on a autofs managed mount entry that is browsable (and so 
> the mount point directory exists).
> 
> While this problem has been present for a long time I've avoided resolving 
> it because it was not very visible. But now that autofs v5 has "mount and 
> expire on demand" of nested multiple mounts, such as is found when 
> mounting an export list from a server, solving the problem cannot be 
> avoided any longer.
> 
> I've tried very hard to find a way to do this entirely within the 
> autofs4 module but have not been able to find a satisfactory way to 
> achieve it.
> 
> So, I need to propose a change to the VFS.
> 
> --- linux-2.6.17/fs/namei.c.dcache-revalidate-return-fail	2006-06-19 13:26:27.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-2.6.17/fs/namei.c	2006-06-19 13:31:31.000000000 +0800
> @@ -380,9 +380,24 @@ static struct dentry * cached_lookup(str
>  		dentry = d_lookup(parent, name);
>  
>  	if (dentry && dentry->d_op && dentry->d_op->d_revalidate) {
> -		if (!dentry->d_op->d_revalidate(dentry, nd) && !d_invalidate(dentry)) {
> -			dput(dentry);
> -			dentry = NULL;
> +		if (!dentry->d_op->d_revalidate(dentry, nd)) {
> +			if (!d_invalidate(dentry)) {
> +				dput(dentry);
> +				return NULL;
> +			}
> +			/*
> +			 * As well as the normal validation, check if we need
> +			 * to force a fail on a valid dentry (autofs4 browsable
> +			 * mounts).
> +			 */
> +			spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
> +			if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_REVAL_FORCE_FAIL) {
> +				dentry->d_flags &= ~DCACHE_REVAL_FORCE_FAIL;
> +				spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
> +				dput(dentry);
> +				return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> +			}
> +			spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
>  		}
>  	}
>  	return dentry;
> @@ -477,9 +492,24 @@ static struct dentry * real_lookup(struc
>  	 */
>  	mutex_unlock(&dir->i_mutex);
>  	if (result->d_op && result->d_op->d_revalidate) {
> -		if (!result->d_op->d_revalidate(result, nd) && !d_invalidate(result)) {
> -			dput(result);
> -			result = ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> +		if (!result->d_op->d_revalidate(result, nd)) {
> +			if (!d_invalidate(result)) {
> +				dput(result);
> +				return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> +			}
> +			/*
> +		 	* d_revalidate failed but the dentry is still valid so
> +			* check if we need to force a fail on the dentry (autofs4
> +			* browsable mounts).
> +		 	*/
> +			spin_lock(&result->d_lock);
> +		    	if (result->d_flags & DCACHE_REVAL_FORCE_FAIL) {
> +				result->d_flags &= ~DCACHE_REVAL_FORCE_FAIL;
> +				spin_unlock(&result->d_lock);
> +				dput(result);
> +				return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> +			}
> +			spin_unlock(&result->d_lock);
>  		}
>  	}
>  	return result;
> @@ -762,8 +792,21 @@ need_lookup:
>  need_revalidate:
>  	if (dentry->d_op->d_revalidate(dentry, nd))
>  		goto done;
> -	if (d_invalidate(dentry))
> +	if (d_invalidate(dentry)) {
> +		/*
> +		 * d_revalidate failed but the dentry is still valid so check
> +		 * if we need to return a fail (autofs4 browsable mounts).
> +		 */
> +		spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
> +		if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_REVAL_FORCE_FAIL) {
> +			dentry->d_flags &= ~DCACHE_REVAL_FORCE_FAIL;
> +			spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
> +			dput(dentry);
> +			return -ENOENT;
> +		}
> +		spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
>  		goto done;
> +	}

All these are basically the same.  Could you look at creating a common
function, please?

Also, I don't know how frequently that code path is executed (presumably
infrequently) but would the semantics permit us to do:

	if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_REVAL_FORCE_FAIL) {
		spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
		if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_REVAL_FORCE_FAIL) {
			dentry->d_flags &= ~DCACHE_REVAL_FORCE_FAIL;
			spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
			dput(dentry);
			return -ENOENT;
		}
		spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
	}

to avoid taking the lock sometimes?

And we should have an unlikely() in there to tell the compiler to put the
code somewhere less likely to chew up CPU cache.


Also, did you consider broadening the ->d_revalidate() semantics?  It
appears that all implementations return 0 or 1.  You could teach the VFS to
also recognise and act upon a -ve return value, and do this trickery within
the autofs d_revalidate(), perhaps?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/