If you call xas_find() with the initial index > max, it should have
returned NULL but was returning the entry at index.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
If the entry is of an order which is a multiple of XA_CHUNK_SIZE,
the current detection of sibling entries does not work. Factor out
an xas_sibling() function to make xa_find_after() a little more
understandable, and write a new implementation that doesn't suffer from
the same bug.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
If there is an entry at ULONG_MAX, xa_for_each() will overflow the
'index + 1' in xa_find_after() and wrap around to 0. Catch this case
and terminate the loop by returning NULL.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
If we were unlucky enough to call xas_pause() when the index was at
ULONG_MAX (or a multi-slot entry which ends at ULONG_MAX), we would
wrap the index back around to 0 and restart the iteration from the
beginning. Use the XAS_BOUNDS state to indicate that we should just
stop the iteration.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
If there is only a single entry at 0, the first time we call xas_next(),
we return the entry. Unfortunately, all subsequent times we call
xas_next(), we also return the entry at 0 instead of noticing that the
xa_index is now greater than zero. This broke find_get_pages_contig().
Fixes: 64d3e9a9e0 ("xarray: Step through an XArray")
Reported-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
A simple test which just checks that inserting an entry into an empty
array succeeds. Try various different interesting indices.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
If we reserve index 0, the next entry to be stored there might be 2-byte
aligned. That means we have to create the root xa_node at the time of
reserving the initial entry.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
xas_store() was interpreting the entry it found in the array as a node
entry if the bottom two bits had value 2. That's only true if either
the entry is in the root node or in a non-leaf node.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
xa_cmpxchg() was a little too magic in turning ZERO entries into NULL,
and would leave the entry set to the ZERO entry instead of releasing
it for future use. After careful review of existing users of
xa_cmpxchg(), change the semantics so that it does not translate either
incoming argument from NULL into ZERO entries.
Add several tests to the test-suite to make sure this problem doesn't
come back.
Reported-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
If the user doesn't care about the return value from xa_insert(), then
they should be using xa_store() instead. The point of xa_reserve() is
to get the return value early before taking another lock, so this should
also be __must_check.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
This differs slightly from the IDR equivalent in five ways.
1. It can allocate up to UINT_MAX instead of being limited to INT_MAX,
like xa_alloc(). Also like xa_alloc(), it will write to the 'id'
pointer before placing the entry in the XArray.
2. The 'next' cursor is allocated separately from the XArray instead
of being part of the IDR. This saves memory for all the users which
do not use the cyclic allocation API and suits some users better.
3. It returns -EBUSY instead of -ENOSPC.
4. It will attempt to wrap back to the minimum value on memory allocation
failure as well as on an -EBUSY error, assuming that a user would
rather allocate a small ID than suffer an ID allocation failure.
5. It reports whether it has wrapped, which is important to some users.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
It was too easy to forget to initialise the start index. Add an
xa_limit data structure which can be used to pass min & max, and
define a couple of special values for common cases. Also add some
more tests cribbed from the IDR test suite. Change the return value
from -ENOSPC to -EBUSY to match xa_insert().
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
A lot of places want to allocate IDs starting at 1 instead of 0.
While the xa_alloc() API supports this, it's not very efficient if lots
of IDs are allocated, due to having to walk down to the bottom of the
tree to see if ID 1 is available, then all the way over to the next
non-allocated ID. This method marks ID 0 as being occupied which wastes
one slot in the XArray, but preserves xa_empty() as working.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Userspace translates EEXIST to "File exists" which isn't a very good
error message for the problem. "Device or resource busy" is a better
indication of what went wrong.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Drop and reacquire the RCU read lock while using GFP_KERNEL.
Reported-by: Li RongQing <lirongqing@baidu.com>
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
We do not currently check that the loop in xas_squash_marks() doesn't have
an off-by-one error in it. It didn't, but a patch which introduced an
off-by-one error wasn't caught by any existing test. Switch the roles
of XA_MARK_1 and XA_MARK_2 to catch that bug.
Reported-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
xa_insert() should treat reserved entries as occupied, not as available.
Also, it should treat requests to insert a NULL pointer as a request
to reserve the slot. Add xa_insert_bh() and xa_insert_irq() for
completeness.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
On m68k, statically allocated pointers may only be two-byte aligned.
This clashes with the XArray's method for tagging internal pointers.
Permit storing these pointers in single slots (ie not in multislots).
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
There were three problems with this API:
1. It took too many arguments; almost all users wanted to iterate over
every element in the array rather than a subset.
2. It required that 'index' be initialised before use, and there's no
realistic way to make GCC catch that.
3. 'index' and 'entry' were the opposite way round from every other
member of the XArray APIs.
So split it into three different APIs:
xa_for_each(xa, index, entry)
xa_for_each_start(xa, index, entry, start)
xa_for_each_marked(xa, index, entry, filter)
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Specifying a starting ID greater than the maximum ID isn't something
attempted very often, but it should fail. It was succeeding due to
xas_find_marked() returning the wrong error state, so add tests for
both xa_alloc() and xas_find_marked().
Fixes: b803b42823 ("xarray: Add XArray iterators")
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
xa_mk_value() only handles values up to LONG_MAX. I successfully hid
that inside xa_store_index() and xa_erase_index(), but it turned out I
also needed it for testing xa_alloc() on 32-bit machines. So extract
xa_mk_index() from the above two functions, and convert the non-constant
users of xa_mk_value() to xa_mk_index().
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Lockdep caught me being sloppy in the test suite and failing to lock
the XArray appropriately.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
The test-suite caught these two mistakes when compiled for 32-bit.
I had only been running the test-suite in 64-bit mode.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
