From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5BA2645; Tue, 1 Oct 2024 14:48:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727794133; cv=none; b=WHT0pufoE9LkPmo61IIVQrmWZZWVsTGsZLPeP/K6LkxzTJN2/gw3lxO1hP7pkJ05YdAWc3SAsejSZcSQRQNHLDDN6puNnoGCY6+2F+S+2hRTTfyYBZRPywtcLVMVvgbQ8G5MDn0l3Dd2UDE3+RFcgqMBrxTBhUfLv2QFSBqPqxQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727794133; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EAv1lrQVcymYc99WOIdzGZa/Io0fq6ARfqrObpJAVZM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ZPWWGZxzmfEbS1QOXwHU+tk0kZ13aPGRK+1l2B4GTM6qtjTSpbnmE33iVXEfJXQTI1WuOb/9+mLKvP+AT8mTjItorGwyReTZb8u7uwaJ7ohkCIMGLQIVjqv45LcaR1ipkkjtcEVEGZUY3a89XnHpsgyeBmcVPpHyRZbFM+7xXt4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=knVZFeXJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="knVZFeXJ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CAC4C4CEC6; Tue, 1 Oct 2024 14:48:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1727794132; bh=EAv1lrQVcymYc99WOIdzGZa/Io0fq6ARfqrObpJAVZM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=knVZFeXJi83A5T9sFZDsYDEoxj2yoqGO4W1B9/shd81sw/ifOXt/9HuXc3PuB1DcS p6exPzv+8Ltt4Vy8hkEhBOa/A6XprtCp1Lmq/nYobA4+7XNsKzgHAtEbUCvB5/B6jn 9IvjPSCq56NZsOQcTAcydOi8whSkUZXh9Zpk71ijW/1WjAQSq7QxnOyt0qj3pUM9hD I1rNYwkkx0CcZ4Qz6eqbh5yB5eDgmgyN4RsrUjYGIv4fAuu9f7p5prQkaKkmJsfUkU KtWY5cvs9CwCbQWXHi6RKyIB29/HJYYMCl91nVpJpIHKzCB1uqFnI5UtFkOagCc5sK FqtWo/VLfVLqg== Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 07:48:51 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: John Garry Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, brauner@kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.cz, dchinner@redhat.com, hch@lst.de, cem@kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hare@suse.de, martin.petersen@oracle.com, catherine.hoang@oracle.com, mcgrof@kernel.org, ritesh.list@gmail.com, ojaswin@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/7] xfs: Validate atomic writes Message-ID: <20241001144851.GW21853@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20240930125438.2501050-1-john.g.garry@oracle.com> <20240930125438.2501050-7-john.g.garry@oracle.com> <20240930164116.GP21853@frogsfrogsfrogs> <7fa598f5-3920-4b13-9d15-49337688713f@oracle.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7fa598f5-3920-4b13-9d15-49337688713f@oracle.com> On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 02:22:23PM +0100, John Garry wrote: > On 30/09/2024 17:41, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 12:54:37PM +0000, John Garry wrote: > > > Validate that an atomic write adheres to length/offset rules. Currently > > > we can only write a single FS block. > > > > > > For an IOCB with IOCB_ATOMIC set to get as far as xfs_file_dio_write(), > > > FMODE_CAN_ATOMIC_WRITE will need to be set for the file; for this, > > > ATOMICWRITES flags would also need to be set for the inode. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: John Garry > > > --- > > > fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 7 +++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > > > index 412b1d71b52b..fa6a44b88ecc 100644 > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > > > @@ -688,6 +688,13 @@ xfs_file_dio_write( > > > struct xfs_buftarg *target = xfs_inode_buftarg(ip); > > > size_t count = iov_iter_count(from); > > > + if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_ATOMIC) { > > > + if (count != ip->i_mount->m_sb.sb_blocksize) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + if (!generic_atomic_write_valid(iocb, from)) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > > Does xfs_file_write_iter need a catch-all so that we don't fall back to > > buffered write for a directio write that returns ENOTBLK? > > > > if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DIRECT) { > > /* > > * Allow a directio write to fall back to a buffered > > * write *only* in the case that we're doing a reflink > > * CoW. In all other directio scenarios we do not > > * allow an operation to fall back to buffered mode. > > */ > > ret = xfs_file_dio_write(iocb, from); > > if (ret != -ENOTBLK || (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_ATOMIC)) > > return ret; > > } > > > > IIRC iomap_dio_rw can return ENOTBLK if pagecache invalidation fails for > > the region that we're trying to directio write. > > I see where you are talking about. There is also a ENOTBLK from unaligned > write for CoW, but we would not see that. > > But I was thinking to use a common helper to catch this, like > generic_write_checks_count() [which is called on the buffered IO path]: > > ----8<----- > > diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c > index 32b476bf9be0..222f25c6439c 100644 > --- a/fs/read_write.c > +++ b/fs/read_write.c > @@ -1774,6 +1774,10 @@ int generic_write_checks_count(struct kiocb *iocb, > loff_t *count) > if (!*count) > return 0; > > + if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_ATOMIC && > + !(iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DIRECT)) > + return -EINVAL; > + > if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_APPEND) > iocb->ki_pos = i_size_read(inode); > > ---->8----- > > But we keep the IOCB_DIRECT flag for the buffered IO fallback (so no good). > > Another option would be: > > ----8<----- > > --- a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c > +++ b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c > @@ -679,7 +679,12 @@ __iomap_dio_rw(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter > *iter, > if (ret != -EAGAIN) { > trace_iomap_dio_invalidate_fail(inode, iomi.pos, > iomi.len); > - ret = -ENOTBLK; > + if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_ATOMIC) { > + if (ret == -ENOTBLK) > + ret = -EAGAIN; I don't follow the logic here -- all the error codes except for EAGAIN are squashed into ENOTBLK, so why would we let them through for an atomic write? if (ret != -EAGAIN) { trace_iomap_dio_invalidate_fail(inode, iomi.pos, iomi.len); if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_ATOMIC) { /* * folio invalidation failed, maybe this is * transient, unlock and see if the caller * tries again */ return -EAGAIN; } else { /* fall back to buffered write */ return -ENOTBLK; } } --D > + }else { > + ret = -ENOTBLK; > + } > } > goto out_free_dio; > } > ---->8----- > > I suggest that, as other FSes (like ext4) handle -ENOTBLK and would need to > be changed similar to XFS. But I am not sure if changing the error code from > -ENOTBLK for IOCB_ATOMIC is ok. > > Let me know what you think about possible alternative solutions. > > Thanks, > John >