From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB60EECDE43 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:21:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49C320645 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:21:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A49C320645 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=fromorbit.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727203AbeJVKhq (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2018 06:37:46 -0400 Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.131]:10211 "EHLO ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725922AbeJVKhq (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2018 06:37:46 -0400 Received: from ppp59-167-129-252.static.internode.on.net (HELO dastard) ([59.167.129.252]) by ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 22 Oct 2018 12:51:13 +1030 Received: from dave by dastard with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1gEPqC-0002Da-4w; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 13:21:12 +1100 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 13:21:12 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: sandeen@redhat.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/28] fs: fixes for serious clone/dedupe problems Message-ID: <20181022022112.GW6311@dastard> References: <154013850285.29026.16168387526580596209.stgit@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <154013850285.29026.16168387526580596209.stgit@magnolia> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 09:15:03AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Hi all, > > Dave, Eric, and I have been chasing a stale data exposure bug in the XFS > reflink implementation, and tracked it down to reflink forgetting to do > some of the file-extending activities that must happen for regular > writes. > > We then started auditing the clone, dedupe, and copyfile code and > realized that from a file contents perspective, clonerange isn't any > different from a regular file write. Unfortunately, we also noticed > that *unlike* a regular write, clonerange skips a ton of overflow > checks, such as validating the ranges against s_maxbytes, MAX_NON_LFS, > and RLIMIT_FSIZE. We also observed that cloning into a file did not > strip security privileges (suid, capabilities) like a regular write > would. I also noticed that xfs and ocfs2 need to dump the page cache > before remapping blocks, not after. > > In fixing the range checking problems I also realized that both dedupe > and copyfile tell userspace how much of the requested operation was > acted upon. Since the range validation can shorten a clone request (or > we can ENOSPC midway through), we might as well plumb the short > operation reporting back through the VFS indirection code to userspace. > I added a few more cleanups to the xfs code per reviewer suggestions. > > So, here's the whole giant pile of patches[1] that fix all the problems. > This branch is against current upstream (4.19-rc8). The patch > "generic: test reflink side effects" recently sent to fstests exercises > the fixes in this series. Tests are in [2]. Ok, so now that all the patches (other than the ocfs2 bits) have been reviewed, how do we want to merge this? I can take it through the XFS tree given that there is a bit of XFS changes that needs to be co-ordinated with it, or should it go through some other tree? The other question I have is who reviews ocfs2 changes these days? Do they get reviewed, or just shepherded in via akpm's tree? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com