Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] iov_iter: allow iov_iter_get_pages_alloc to allocate more pages per call

[Al Viro]

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:35:54PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > Another thing: what guarantees that places in writepages-related paths
> > where we store a reference into req->ff won't hit a request with already
> > non-NULL ->ff?
> 
> Well, it is set before being sent (queued onto queued_writes or queued on the
> fuse device), but not when queued as secondary request onto an already in-flight
> one.  It looks okay to me.

>  void fuse_sync_release(struct fuse_file *ff, int flags)
>  {
> -	WARN_ON(atomic_read(&ff->count) > 1);
> +	WARN_ON(atomic_read(&ff->count) != 1);
>  	fuse_prepare_release(ff, flags, FUSE_RELEASE);
> -	__set_bit(FR_FORCE, &ff->reserved_req->flags);
> -	__clear_bit(FR_BACKGROUND, &ff->reserved_req->flags);
> -	fuse_request_send(ff->fc, ff->reserved_req);
> -	fuse_put_request(ff->fc, ff->reserved_req);
> -	kfree(ff);
> +	fuse_file_put(ff, true);

Umm...  At the very least, that deserves a comment re "iput(NULL) is a no-op
and since the refcount is 1 and everything's synchronous, we are fine with
not doing igrab/iput here".  There's enough mysteries in that code as it is...

	Speaking of mysteries - how can ->private_data ever be NULL in
fuse_release_common()?  AFAICS, it's only called from ->release() instances
and those are only called after ->open() or ->atomic_open() on that struct file
has returned 0.  On the ->open() side, it means fuse_do_open() having returned
0; on ->atomic_open() one - fuse_create_open() having done the same.  Neither
is possible with ->private_data remaining NULL, and I don't see any places
that would modify it afterwards...

	Another thing: am I right assuming that ff->nodeid will be the same
for all ff over given inode (== get_node_id(inode))?  What about ff->fh?
Is that a per-open thing, or will it be identical for all opens of the same
inode?