From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f171.google.com ([209.85.192.171]:33112 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751945AbdLFPvh (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 6 Dec 2017 10:51:37 -0500
Received: by mail-pf0-f171.google.com with SMTP id y89so2441499pfk.0
        for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 06 Dec 2017 07:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 23:51:29 +0800
From: Eryu Guan <guaneryu@gmail.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Harish Kasiviswanathan <Harish.Kasiviswanathan@amd.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Felix.Kuehling@amd.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] direct-io: Fix unsigned comparison overflow
Message-ID: <20171206155129.GC7106@eguan.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <1512510027-7101-1-git-send-email-Harish.Kasiviswanathan@amd.com>
 <20171205221927.GG26021@bombadil.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171205221927.GG26021@bombadil.infradead.org>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 02:19:27PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:40:27PM -0500, Harish Kasiviswanathan wrote:
> >  		create = dio->op == REQ_OP_WRITE;
> > -		if (dio->flags & DIO_SKIP_HOLES) {
> > +		if (dio->flags & DIO_SKIP_HOLES &&
> > +		    i_size_read(dio->inode) > 0) {
> >  			if (fs_startblk <= ((i_size_read(dio->inode) - 1) >>
> >  							i_blkbits))
> 
> i_size_read() isn't cheap on 32-bit SMP ... do we actually need to sample
> it at all here, or is it enough to use the i_size that was sampled earlier?
> IOW:
> 
> 		create = dio->op == REQ_OP_WRITE;
> -		if (dio->flags & DIO_SKIP_HOLES) {
> -			if (fs_startblk <= ((i_size_read(dio->inode) - 1) >>
> -							i_blkbits))
> +		if (dio->flags & DIO_SKIP_HOLES && dio->i_size) {
> +			if (fs_startblk <= (dio->i_size - 1) >> i_blkbits))

I think using dio->i_size should be fine. I tested ext3/4 with LTP
(aio-)dio tests and fstests and didn't see any regression introduced
with this change.

Thanks,
Eryu

> 
> Another possibility would be to tweak the comparison slightly ...
> 
> 		if (dio->flags & DIO_SKIP_HOLES) {
> -			if (fs_startblk <= ((i_size_read(dio->inode) - 1) >>
> -							i_blkbits))
> +			if (fs_startblk < ((i_size_read(dio->inode) +
> +					(1UL << i_blkbits) - 1) >> i_blkbits))
> 
> Or we could use a temporary variable to avoid reading i_size twice.