On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 1:50 PM Matthew Wilcox <wi...@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 09:26:19AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Check for NULL entries before checking the entry order, otherwise NULL
> > is misinterpreted as a present pte conflict. The 'order' check needs to
> > happen before the locked check as an unlocked entry at the wrong order
> > must fallback to lookup the correct order.
> >
> > Reported-by: Jeff Smits <jeff.sm...@intel.com>
> > Reported-by: Doug Nelson <doug.nel...@intel.com>
> > Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org>
> > Fixes: 23c84eb78375 ("dax: Fix missed wakeup with PMD faults")
> > Cc: Jan Kara <j...@suse.cz>
> > Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <wi...@infradead.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > fs/dax.c | 5 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c
> > index a71881e77204..08160011d94c 100644
> > --- a/fs/dax.c
> > +++ b/fs/dax.c
> > @@ -221,10 +221,11 @@ static void *get_unlocked_entry(struct xa_state *xas,
> > unsigned int order)
> >
> > for (;;) {
> > entry = xas_find_conflict(xas);
> > + if (!entry || WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry)))
> > + return entry;
> > if (dax_entry_order(entry) < order)
> > return XA_RETRY_ENTRY;
> > - if (!entry || WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry)) ||
> > - !dax_is_locked(entry))
> > + if (!dax_is_locked(entry))
> > return entry;
>
> Yes, I think this works. Should we also add:
>
> static unsigned int dax_entry_order(void *entry)
> {
> + BUG_ON(!xa_is_value(entry));
> if (xa_to_value(entry) & DAX_PMD)
> return PMD_ORDER;
> return 0;
> }
>
> which would have caught this logic error before it caused a performance
> regression?
Sounds good will add it to v2.
