Re: [RFC PATCH V2 09/12] fs: Prevent mode change if file is mmap'ed

[Ira Weiny]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:34:55PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 14-01-20 09:53:54, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 05:30:04PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > > +		error = -EBUSY;
> > > > > > +		goto out_unlock;
> > > > > > +	}
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >  	error = filemap_write_and_wait(inode->i_mapping);
> > > > > >  	if (error)
> > > > > >  		goto out_unlock;
> > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> > > > > > index 631f11d6246e..6e7dc626b657 100644
> > > > > > --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> > > > > > @@ -740,6 +740,7 @@ struct inode {
> > > > > >  #endif
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  	void			*i_private; /* fs or device private pointer */
> > > > > > +	atomic64_t               i_mapped;
> > > > > 
> > > > > I would have expected to find this in struct address_space since the
> > > > > mapping count is a function of the address space, right?
> > > > 
> > > > I suppose but the only external call (above) would be passing an inode.  So to
> > > > me it seemed better here.
> > > 
> > > But the number of memory mappings reflects the state of the address
> > > space, not the inode.  Or maybe put another way, if I were an mm
> > > developer I would not expect to look in struct inode for mm state.
> > 
> > This is a good point...
> > 
> > > 
> > > static inline bool inode_has_mappings(struct inode *inode)
> > > {
> > > 	return atomic64_read(&inode->i_mapping->mapcount) > 0;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > OTOH if there exist other mm developers who /do/ find that storing the
> > > mmap count in struct inode is more logical, please let me know. :)
> > 
> > ...  My thinking was that the number of mappings does not matters to the mm
> > system...  However, I'm starting to think you are correct...  ;-)
> > 
> > I've made a note of it and we will see what others think.
> 
> Well, more importantly mapping != inode. There can be multiple inodes
> pointing to the same mapping (struct address_space) as is the case for
> example for block devices. So this counter definitely belongs into struct
> address_space.

Ah Yes, great point.  Done.

Ira