On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 at 21:09, Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> I would think that the last "put" would always have the "is_freed" set. The
> WARN_ON is to catch things doing too many put_ei().
Yes, that looks sane to me.
> > + simple_recursive_removal(dentry, NULL);
>
> Actually, this doesn't work.
Yes, note how the next patch just removed it entirely.
> Does this work:
>
> d_invalidate(dentry);
It does, but it's basically irrelevant with the d_revalidate approach.
Basically, once you have d_revalidate(), the unhashing happens there,
and it's just extra work and pointless to do it elsewhere.
So if you look at the "clean up dentry ops and add revalidate
function" patch, you'll see that it just does
- simple_recursive_removal(dentry, NULL);
and the thing is just history.
So really, that final patch is the one that fixes the whole eventfs
mess for good (knock wood). But you can't do it first, because it
basically depends on all the refcount fixes.
It might be possible to re-organize the patches so that the refcount
changes go first, then the d_revalidate(), and then the rest. But I
suspect they all really end up depending on each other some way,
because the basic issue was that the whole "keep unrefcounted dentry
pointers around" was just wrong. So it doesn't end up right until
it's _all_ fixed, because every step of the way exposes some problem.
At least that was my experience. Fix one thing, and it exposes the
hack that another thing depended on.
This is actually something that Al is a master at. You sometimes see
him send one big complicated patch where he talks about all the
problems in some area and it's one huge "fix up everything patch" that
looks very scary.
And then a week later he sends a series of 19 patches that all make
sense and all look "obvious" and all make small progress.
And magically they end up matching that big cleanup patch in the end.
And you just *know* that it didn't start out as that beautiful logical
series, because you saw the big messy patch first...
Linus
