Re: [REPOST,UPDATED PATCH] kernfs: don't create a negative dentry if inactive node exists

[Al Viro]

On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 08:03:55AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 01:07:46AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 09:03:53AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > It's been reported that doing stress test for module insertion and
> > > removal can result in an ENOENT from libkmod for a valid module.
> > > 
> > > In kernfs_iop_lookup() a negative dentry is created if there's no kernfs
> > > node associated with the dentry or the node is inactive.
> > > 
> > > But inactive kernfs nodes are meant to be invisible to the VFS and
> > > creating a negative dentry for these can have unexpected side effects
> > > when the node transitions to an active state.
> > > 
> > > The point of creating negative dentries is to avoid the expensive
> > > alloc/free cycle that occurs if there are frequent lookups for kernfs
> > > attributes that don't exist. So kernfs nodes that are not yet active
> > > should not result in a negative dentry being created so when they
> > > transition to an active state VFS lookups can create an associated
> > > dentry is a natural way.
> > > 
> > > It's also been reported that https://github.com/osandov/blktests.git
> > > test block/001 hangs during the test. It was suggested that recent
> > > changes to blktests might have caused it but applying this patch
> > > resolved the problem without change to blktests.
> > 
> > Looks sane, but which tree should it go through?  I can pick it, but I've
> > no idea if anybody already has kernfs work in their trees...
> 
> I can take it, kernfs patches normally go through my tree, can I get an
> acked-by?

ACKed-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>