When discussing[1] exec and posix file locks it was realized that none
of the callers of get_files_struct fundamentally needed to call
get_files_struct, and that by switching them to helper functions
instead it will both simplify their code and remove unnecessary
increments of files_struct.count.  Those unnecessary increments can
result in exec unnecessarily unsharing files_struct which breaking
posix locks, and it can result in fget_light having to fallback to
fget reducing system performance.

Now that get_files_struct has no more users and can not cause the
problems for posix file locking and fget_light remove get_files_struct
so that it does not gain any new users.

[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180915160423.ga31...@redhat.com
Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebied...@xmission.com>
---
 fs/file.c               | 13 -------------
 include/linux/fdtable.h |  1 -
 2 files changed, 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/file.c b/fs/file.c
index 88f9f78869f8..605e756f3c63 100644
--- a/fs/file.c
+++ b/fs/file.c
@@ -410,19 +410,6 @@ static struct fdtable *close_files(struct files_struct * 
files)
        return fdt;
 }
 
-struct files_struct *get_files_struct(struct task_struct *task)
-{
-       struct files_struct *files;
-
-       task_lock(task);
-       files = task->files;
-       if (files)
-               atomic_inc(&files->count);
-       task_unlock(task);
-
-       return files;
-}
-
 void put_files_struct(struct files_struct *files)
 {
        if (atomic_dec_and_test(&files->count)) {
diff --git a/include/linux/fdtable.h b/include/linux/fdtable.h
index a3a054084f49..8c4bc6aa19c9 100644
--- a/include/linux/fdtable.h
+++ b/include/linux/fdtable.h
@@ -108,7 +108,6 @@ struct file *fnext_task(struct task_struct *task, unsigned 
int *fd);
 
 struct task_struct;
 
-struct files_struct *get_files_struct(struct task_struct *);
 void put_files_struct(struct files_struct *fs);
 int unshare_files(void);
 struct files_struct *dup_fd(struct files_struct *, unsigned, int *) 
__latent_entropy;
-- 
2.25.0

Reply via email to