On Sat, Mar 21, 2026 at 09:04:53PM -0400, Pasha Tatashin wrote: > On Sat, Mar 21, 2026 at 1:58 PM Pasha Tatashin > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Currently, LUO does not prevent the same file from being managed twice > > across different active sessions. > > > > Add a new i_state flag I_LUO_MANAGED and update luo_preserve_file() > > to check and set this flag when a file is preserved, and clear it in > > luo_file_unpreserve_files() when it is released. > > > > Additionally, set this flag in luo_retrieve_file() after a file is > > successfully restored in the new kernel, and clear it in > > luo_file_finish() when the LUO session is finalized. > > > > This ensures that the same file (inode) cannot be managed by multiple > > sessions. If another session attempts to preserve an already managed > > file, it will now fail with -EBUSY. > > > > Acked-by: Pratyush Yadav (Google) <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: Jan Kara <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Pasha Tatashin <[email protected]> > > --- > > include/linux/fs.h | 5 ++++- > > kernel/liveupdate/luo_file.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h > > index 23f36a2613a3..692a8be56f3c 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/fs.h > > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h > > @@ -712,6 +712,8 @@ is_uncached_acl(struct posix_acl *acl) > > * I_LRU_ISOLATING Inode is pinned being isolated from LRU without > > holding > > * i_count. > > * > > + * I_LUO_MANAGED Inode is being managed by a live update session. > > + * > > * Q: What is the difference between I_WILL_FREE and I_FREEING? > > * > > * __I_{SYNC,NEW,LRU_ISOLATING} are used to derive unique addresses to wait > > @@ -744,7 +746,8 @@ enum inode_state_flags_enum { > > I_CREATING = (1U << 15), > > I_DONTCACHE = (1U << 16), > > I_SYNC_QUEUED = (1U << 17), > > - I_PINNING_NETFS_WB = (1U << 18) > > + I_PINNING_NETFS_WB = (1U << 18), > > + I_LUO_MANAGED = (1U << 19), > > }; > > > > #define I_DIRTY_INODE (I_DIRTY_SYNC | I_DIRTY_DATASYNC) > > diff --git a/kernel/liveupdate/luo_file.c b/kernel/liveupdate/luo_file.c > > index 5acee4174bf0..86911beeff71 100644 > > --- a/kernel/liveupdate/luo_file.c > > +++ b/kernel/liveupdate/luo_file.c > > @@ -248,6 +248,7 @@ static bool luo_token_is_used(struct luo_file_set > > *file_set, u64 token) > > * Context: Can be called from an ioctl handler during normal system > > operation. > > * Return: 0 on success. Returns a negative errno on failure: > > * -EEXIST if the token is already used. > > + * -EBUSY if the file descriptor is already preserved by another > > session. > > * -EBADF if the file descriptor is invalid. > > * -ENOSPC if the file_set is full. > > * -ENOENT if no compatible handler is found. > > @@ -276,6 +277,14 @@ int luo_preserve_file(struct luo_file_set *file_set, > > u64 token, int fd) > > if (err) > > goto err_fput; > > > > + scoped_guard(spinlock, &file_inode(file)->i_lock) { > > + if (inode_state_read(file_inode(file)) & I_LUO_MANAGED) { > > + err = -EBUSY; > > + goto err_free_files_mem; > > + } > > + inode_state_set(file_inode(file), I_LUO_MANAGED); > > + } > > + > > err = -ENOENT; > > list_private_for_each_entry(fh, &luo_file_handler_list, list) { > > if (fh->ops->can_preserve(fh, file)) { > > @@ -286,11 +295,11 @@ int luo_preserve_file(struct luo_file_set *file_set, > > u64 token, int fd) > > > > /* err is still -ENOENT if no handler was found */ > > if (err) > > - goto err_free_files_mem; > > + goto err_unpreserve_inode; > > > > err = luo_flb_file_preserve(fh); > > if (err) > > - goto err_free_files_mem; > > + goto err_unpreserve_inode; > > > > luo_file = kzalloc_obj(*luo_file); > > if (!luo_file) { > > @@ -320,6 +329,9 @@ int luo_preserve_file(struct luo_file_set *file_set, > > u64 token, int fd) > > kfree(luo_file); > > err_flb_unpreserve: > > luo_flb_file_unpreserve(fh); > > +err_unpreserve_inode: > > + scoped_guard(spinlock, &file_inode(file)->i_lock) > > + inode_state_clear(file_inode(file), I_LUO_MANAGED); > > err_free_files_mem: > > luo_free_files_mem(file_set); > > err_fput: > > @@ -363,6 +375,9 @@ void luo_file_unpreserve_files(struct luo_file_set > > *file_set) > > luo_file->fh->ops->unpreserve(&args); > > luo_flb_file_unpreserve(luo_file->fh); > > > > + scoped_guard(spinlock, &file_inode(luo_file->file)->i_lock) > > + inode_state_clear(file_inode(luo_file->file), > > I_LUO_MANAGED); > > + > > list_del(&luo_file->list); > > file_set->count--; > > > > @@ -609,6 +624,9 @@ int luo_retrieve_file(struct luo_file_set *file_set, > > u64 token, > > *filep = luo_file->file; > > luo_file->retrieve_status = 1; > > > > + scoped_guard(spinlock, &file_inode(luo_file->file)->i_lock) > > + inode_state_set(file_inode(luo_file->file), I_LUO_MANAGED); > > + > > return 0; > > } > > > > @@ -701,8 +719,11 @@ int luo_file_finish(struct luo_file_set *file_set) > > > > luo_file_finish_one(file_set, luo_file); > > > > - if (luo_file->file) > > + if (luo_file->file) { > > + scoped_guard(spinlock, > > &file_inode(luo_file->file)->i_lock) > > + > > inode_state_clear(file_inode(luo_file->file), I_LUO_MANAGED); > > fput(luo_file->file); > > + } > > list_del(&luo_file->list); > > file_set->count--; > > mutex_destroy(&luo_file->mutex); > > -- > > 2.43.0 > > > > > Sashiko: > > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected] > > Sashiko reported two problems: > > 1. Are there any issues with mixing goto-based error handling and scope-based > cleanups like scoped_guard() in the same function? > > Initially, I thought that there should not be any problems, however, > after looking this up I found in include/linux/cleanup.h the > following comment: > > * Lastly, given that the benefit of cleanup helpers is removal of > * "goto", and that the "goto" statement can jump between scopes, the > * expectation is that usage of "goto" and cleanup helpers is never > * mixed in the same function.
There's a compile-time switch you might want to turn on when test-compiling code like this. I forget exactly what it is. Something like jump-over-uninit or something. > > Well, good to know, will not use goto inside scoped_guards. > > 2. Additionally, does setting I_LUO_MANAGED on the inode break the > preservation > of anonymous inodes? Many file types (like eventfd, epoll, timerfd, > signalfd) > > This is actually a very good point. It looks like everyone who uses > anon_inode_getfd() has one shared inode. This is not a problem for the > existing LUO user memfd, or for the upcoming vfiofd and memfd, but > kvm-vmfd and kvm-cpufd also use it, and that might be a problem in the > future once we add support for Orphaned VMs. > > Therefore, we have two choices: either use a hash table, which adds > performance and memory overhead, or delegate this double-check to the > LUO file handlers, as they can use a private context to know if the FD > is already preserved. So, I'm not happy about I_LUO_MANAGED. I don't think we need driver specific stuff in struct inode and not in i_state. Track this in the driver please. I don't want this precedent and I'd rather have you get used to implementing such things in the driver right away rather than offloading this on general infrastructure. If we let this slide struct inode will be 2MB 1 in year.
