public inbox for linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
	yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com, yukuai3@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: dio take shared inode lock when overwriting preallocated blocks
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 13:52:32 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y5obcGLDZuw/NWOh@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221214170125.bixz46ybm76rtbzf@quack3>

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 06:01:25PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> 
> Besides some naming nits (see below) I think this should work. But I have
> to say I'm a bit uneasy about this because we will now be changing block
> mapping from unwritten to written only with shared i_rwsem. OTOH that
> happens during writeback as well so we should be fine and the gain is very
> nice.

Hmm.... when I was looking potential impacts of the change what
ext4_overwrite_io() would do, I looked at the current user of that
function in ext4_dio_write_checks().

	/*
	 * Determine whether the IO operation will overwrite allocated
	 * and initialized blocks.
	 * We need exclusive i_rwsem for changing security info
	 * in file_modified().
	 */
	if (*ilock_shared && (!IS_NOSEC(inode) || *extend ||
	     !ext4_overwrite_io(inode, offset, count))) {
		if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT) {
			ret = -EAGAIN;
			goto out;
		}
		inode_unlock_shared(inode);
		*ilock_shared = false;
		inode_lock(inode);
		goto restart;
	}

	ret = file_modified(file);
	if (ret < 0)
		goto out;

What is confusing me is the comment, "We need exclusive i_rwsem for
changing security info in file_modified().".  But then we end up
calling file_modified() unconditionally, regardless of whether we've
transitioned from a shared lock to an exclusive lock.

So file_modified() can get called either with or without the inode
locked r/w.  I realize that this patch doesn't change this
inconsistency, but it appears either the comment is wrong, or the code
is wrong.

What am I missing?

						- Ted

  reply	other threads:[~2022-12-14 18:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-12-03 10:39 [RFC PATCH] ext4: dio take shared inode lock when overwriting preallocated blocks Zhang Yi
2022-12-14 13:44 ` Zhang Yi
2022-12-14 17:01 ` Jan Kara
2022-12-14 18:52   ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2022-12-15  8:41     ` Zhang Yi
2022-12-15  8:49       ` Zhang Yi
2022-12-15  8:48     ` Jan Kara
2022-12-15  8:24   ` Zhang Yi
2022-12-15  9:00     ` Jan Kara
2022-12-15  9:21       ` Zhang Yi

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=Y5obcGLDZuw/NWOh@mit.edu \
    --to=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
    --cc=yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com \
    --cc=yukuai3@huawei.com \
    /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