Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree

[Jens Axboe]

On 1/13/20 10:09 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/12/20 11:32 AM, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 09:04:01PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 1/5/20 6:30 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> After merging the block tree, today's linux-next build (arm
>>>> multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
>>>>
>>>> fs/open.c:977:12: error: conflicting types for 'build_open_flags'
>>>>   977 | inline int build_open_flags(const struct open_how *how,
>>>>       |            ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> In file included from /home/sfr/next/next/fs/open.c:36:
>>>> fs/internal.h:127:12: note: previous declaration of 'build_open_flags' was here
>>>>   127 | extern int build_open_flags(int flags, umode_t mode, struct open_flags *op);
>>>>       |            ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>> Caused by commits
>>>>
>>>>   4e9e15c9426e ("fs: make build_open_flags() available internally")
>>>>   3bba3e571bc8 ("io_uring: add support for IORING_OP_OPENAT")
>>>>
>>>> interacting with commit
>>>>
>>>>   0a51692d49ec ("open: introduce openat2(2) syscall")
>>>>
>>>> from the vfs tree.
>>>>
>>>> I have applied the following fix up patch for today:
>>>
>>> Thanks Stephen - I'll pull in the VFS tree and rebase the 5.6 io_uring
>>> bits on that. Then I'll send it out for review again, haven't heard from
>>> Al on the non-block open change.
>>
>> FWIW, I don't believe that your approach is workable.  First of all,
>> *ANY* transition out of RCU mode can lead to blocking.  You need to
>> acquire several references (mount and dentry, at the very least).
>> Suppose the last one fails (->d_seq mismatch).  Now you suddenly
>> have to drop the one(s) you've acquired.  And both dput() and mntput()
>> are fundamentally blocking operations.
>>
>> It simply does not work.  You could cobble up something that kinda-sorta
>> works, if your added flag had
>> 	* caused hard failure on unlazy_child()
>> 	* caused hard failure on unlazy_walk() with any symlinks in stack
>> 	* caused hard failure on unlazy_walk() if it would've been required
>> to grab root
>> 	* made unlazy_walk() go through very careful dance if it's just
>> about nd->path; I'm not sure how well that could be done, but theoretically
>> it's not impossible.
>>
>> But for open() it's not going to work at all.  Any open for write => you
>> will have to wait if you run into fs freeze.  O_TRUNC => you've got IO
>> to do.  Worst of all, once you've dropped out of RCU mode, *YOU* *CAN'T*
>> *FAIL*.  Because that means blocking operations.  So you need to verify
>> that you won't run into a blocking ->open(), IMA deciding to play silly
>> buggers and read through the entire file, etc., etc. _before_ dropping
>> out of RCU mode.
>>
>> do_last() is messy enough as it is; adding _this_ is completely out of
>> question.
> 
> Thanks Al, that's useful! Sounds like the lookup is doable, but the open
> part is just a wasp nest of "don't even go there". For now, I'll drop
> the lookup change and just have the io_uring open punt to async. With
> that, I don't need any non-blocking guarantees. That is workable for
> now.

Forgot to mention, I'll implement your addition for the lookup part,
since I still need that for the statx addition. But the open itself
will not use any of that, I'll leave that as-is and just go async.

-- 
Jens Axboe