From: Chris Mason <mason@kernel.org>
To: mason@kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, cem@kernel.org,
david@fromorbit.com, jack@suse.cz, djwong@kernel.org,
josef@toxicpanda.com, hch@lst.de, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
tz2294@columbia.edu, brauner@kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v7 07/11] xfs: test for reflink after the dio write checks
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2026 14:04:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261110190417.32650-9-mason@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261110190417.32650-1-mason@kernel.org>
A direct write that is not block aligned can expose stale disk contents
on XFS if it races with the first clone of the file.
xfs_file_dio_write_unaligned() falls back to buffered I/O if the file is
reflinked, and tests for that right after it takes the iolock. But
xfs_file_write_checks() runs after the test and can drop the iolock, for
example if S_NOSEC is not set. A clone can run in that gap:
direct write clone
============ =====
takes the iolock shared
sees that the file is not reflinked
drops the iolock
shares the blocks
takes the iolock exclusive
writes a part of a new COW block
maps the whole block into the file
/* the rest was never written */
The fix used here is to move the test after xfs_file_write_checks().
Fixes: ed1128c2d0c8 ("xfs: reduce exclusive locking on unaligned dio")
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <mason@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
---
Notes:
v6->v7:
- No change.
fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 12 +++++++-----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
index 8ee88910b487..d888470d092a 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
@@ -877,9 +877,15 @@ xfs_file_dio_write_unaligned(
if (ret)
return ret;
+ ret = xfs_file_write_checks(iocb, from, &iolock, NULL);
+ if (ret)
+ goto out_unlock;
+
/*
* We can't properly handle unaligned direct I/O to reflink files yet,
- * as we can't unshare a partial block.
+ * as we can't unshare a partial block. xfs_file_write_checks() can
+ * drop the iolock and take it again, and the file can be reflinked in
+ * between, so test for that only now.
*/
if (xfs_is_cow_inode(ip)) {
trace_xfs_reflink_bounce_dio_write(iocb, from);
@@ -887,10 +893,6 @@ xfs_file_dio_write_unaligned(
goto out_unlock;
}
- ret = xfs_file_write_checks(iocb, from, &iolock, NULL);
- if (ret)
- goto out_unlock;
-
/*
* If we are doing exclusive unaligned I/O, this must be the only I/O
* in-flight. Otherwise we risk data corruption due to unwritten extent
--
2.55.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-10 19:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-10 19:04 [PATCH v7 00/11] reflink and atomic write bugs Chris Mason
2026-11-10 19:04 ` Chris Mason
2026-11-10 19:04 ` [PATCH v7 01/11] xfs: don't skip the flush before shifting extents Chris Mason
2026-11-10 19:16 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-10 19:04 ` [PATCH v7 02/11] xfs: flush the shifted range before changing the file Chris Mason
2026-11-10 19:11 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-10 19:04 ` [PATCH v7 03/11] xfs: don't change the block map under a dirty folio Chris Mason
2026-11-10 19:16 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-10 19:04 ` [PATCH v7 04/11] iomap: don't punch delalloc under a dirty EOF block Chris Mason
2026-11-10 19:19 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-10 19:04 ` [PATCH v7 05/11] fs: validate atomic writes after O_APPEND and limits Chris Mason
2026-11-10 19:52 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 4:54 ` Tal Zussman
2026-11-10 19:04 ` [PATCH v7 06/11] xfs: recheck direct write alignment after write checks Chris Mason
2026-11-10 19:49 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-10 19:04 ` Chris Mason [this message]
2026-11-10 19:28 ` [PATCH v7 07/11] xfs: test for reflink after the dio " sashiko-bot
2026-11-10 19:04 ` [PATCH v7 08/11] xfs: refuse writes to files racing with realtime inode flag changes Chris Mason
2026-11-10 19:54 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-10 19:04 ` [PATCH v7 09/11] xfs: test for always COW after the dio write checks Chris Mason
2026-11-10 19:55 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 15:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-11-10 19:04 ` [PATCH v7 10/11] xfs: refuse fallocate racing with realtime flag changes Chris Mason
2026-11-10 20:09 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-10 19:04 ` [PATCH v7 11/11] xfs: restart faults " Chris Mason
2026-11-10 20:35 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 15:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20261110190417.32650-9-mason@kernel.org \
--to=mason@kernel.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=tz2294@columbia.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox