From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Chris Mason" <mason@kernel.org>, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Cc: tytso@mit.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/11] xfs: recheck direct write alignment after write checks
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2026 19:49:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-207684@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261110190417.32650-8-mason@kernel.org>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential
issue to consider:
- [Medium] xfs: sector-unaligned O_DIRECT writes after write checks
bounce to buffered I/O
--
commit 9318aacdeda831439c37400a39cd1973c5ae71aa
Author: Chris Mason <mason@kernel.org>
xfs: recheck direct write alignment after write checks
This commit rechecks block alignment in xfs_file_dio_write_aligned() after
xfs_file_write_checks() adjusts the write range for O_APPEND and file size
limits, falling back to the unaligned or buffered path when the final range
is no longer block aligned.
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> index 153f53f964b99..8ee88910b487d 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> @@ -710,6 +710,17 @@ xfs_file_dio_write_aligned(
> if (ret)
> goto out_unlock;
>
> + /*
> + * O_APPEND moves the position and the file size limits shorten the
> + * write, so only now is the range final. If it is not block aligned,
> + * this is the wrong path for it. Return -EAGAIN to
> + * xfs_file_dio_write(), which picks the path.
> + */
> + if ((iocb->ki_pos | iov_iter_count(from)) & ip->i_mount->m_blockmask) {
> + ret = -EAGAIN;
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
> +
> /*
> * We don't need to hold the IOLOCK exclusively across the IO, so demote
> * the iolock back to shared if we had to take the exclusive lock in
> @@ -921,6 +932,7 @@ xfs_file_dio_write(
> struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(file_inode(iocb->ki_filp));
> struct xfs_buftarg *target = xfs_inode_buftarg(ip);
> size_t count = iov_iter_count(from);
> + ssize_t ret;
>
> /* direct I/O must be aligned to device logical sector size */
> if ((iocb->ki_pos | count) & target->bt_logical_sectormask)
> @@ -937,12 +949,32 @@ xfs_file_dio_write(
> return xfs_file_dio_write_atomic(ip, iocb, from);
> }
>
> - if ((iocb->ki_pos | count) & ip->i_mount->m_blockmask)
> - return xfs_file_dio_write_unaligned(ip, iocb, from);
> - if (xfs_is_zoned_inode(ip))
> - return xfs_file_dio_write_zoned(ip, iocb, from);
> - return xfs_file_dio_write_aligned(ip, iocb, from,
> - &xfs_direct_write_iomap_ops, &xfs_dio_write_ops, NULL);
> + /*
> + * O_APPEND and the file size limits can still change the range, in
> + * xfs_file_write_checks(). So a range that is block aligned here may
> + * not stay so, and the write then comes back with -EAGAIN. If we are
> + * doing nonblocking user I/O, propagate the error.
> + */
> + if (!((iocb->ki_pos | count) & ip->i_mount->m_blockmask)) {
> + if (xfs_is_zoned_inode(ip))
> + ret = xfs_file_dio_write_zoned(ip, iocb, from);
> + else
> + ret = xfs_file_dio_write_aligned(ip, iocb, from,
> + &xfs_direct_write_iomap_ops,
> + &xfs_dio_write_ops, NULL);
> + if (ret != -EAGAIN || (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT))
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Zoned inodes always write out of place, which does not work for a
> + * part of a block. Fall back to buffered I/O.
> + */
> + if (xfs_is_zoned_inode(ip)) {
> + trace_xfs_reflink_bounce_dio_write(iocb, from);
> + return -ENOTBLK;
> + }
> + return xfs_file_dio_write_unaligned(ip, iocb, from);
> }
[Severity: Medium]
Can an O_DIRECT write whose updated range is no longer aligned to
target->bt_logical_sectormask silently fall back to buffered I/O instead of
returning -EINVAL?
When a block-aligned O_DIRECT write enters xfs_file_dio_write_aligned() and
xfs_file_write_checks() moves iocb->ki_pos to a non-sector-aligned EOF for
O_APPEND (or truncates from to a non-sector-aligned RLIMIT_FSIZE), the new
m_blockmask check returns -EAGAIN before iomap_dio_rw() can reject the
unaligned range with -EINVAL. On the fallback path, neither
xfs_file_dio_write() nor xfs_file_dio_write_unaligned() rechecks
target->bt_logical_sectormask before returning -ENOTBLK for zoned or CoW
inodes, causing xfs_file_write_iter() to complete the sector-unaligned
O_DIRECT write through the page cache. For non-CoW, non-zoned inodes,
xfs_file_dio_write_unaligned() also proceeds into iomap_dio_rw() and can
allocate unwritten blocks for extending writes before iomap_dio_bio_iter()
fails with -EINVAL.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261110190417.32650-1-mason@kernel.org?part=6
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-10 19:49 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 [this message]
2026-11-10 19:04 ` [PATCH v7 07/11] xfs: test for reflink after the dio " Chris Mason
2026-11-10 19:28 ` 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=sashiko-outbox-207684@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mason@kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=tytso@mit.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