Re: [PATCH RFC] ext4: fix potential race between online resizing and write operations

[Theodore Y. Ts'o]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:08:57PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> now it becomes possible to use it like: 
> 	...
> 	void *p = kvmalloc(PAGE_SIZE);
> 	kvfree_rcu(p);
> 	...
> also have a look at the example in the mm/list_lru.c diff.

I certainly like the interface, thanks!  I'm going to be pushing
patches to fix this using ext4_kvfree_array_rcu() since there are a
number of bugs in ext4's online resizing which appear to be hitting
multiple cloud providers (with reports from both AWS and GCP) and I
want something which can be easily backported to stable kernels.

But once kvfree_rcu() hits mainline, I'll switch ext4 to use it, since
your kvfree_rcu() is definitely more efficient than my expedient
jury-rig.

I don't feel entirely competent to review the implementation, but I do
have one question.  It looks like the rcutiny implementation of
kfree_call_rcu() isn't going to do the right thing with kvfree_rcu(p).
Am I missing something?

> diff --git a/include/linux/rcutiny.h b/include/linux/rcutiny.h
> index 045c28b71f4f..a12ecc1645fa 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcutiny.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcutiny.h
> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ static inline void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void)
>         synchronize_rcu();
>  }
> 
> -static inline void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> +static inline void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func, void *ptr)
>  {
>         call_rcu(head, func);
>  }

Thanks,

					- Ted