Linux filesystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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
Subject: [PATCH v6 07/10] xfs: test for reflink after the dio write checks
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2026 18:51:18 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261109235111.14129-8-mason@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261109235111.14129-1-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>
---
 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


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-11-09 23:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-11-09 23:51 [PATCH v6 00/10] reflink and atomic write bugs Chris Mason
2026-11-09 23:51 ` [PATCH v6 01/10] xfs: don't skip the flush before shifting extents Chris Mason
2026-11-09 23:51 ` [PATCH v6 02/10] xfs: flush the shifted range before changing the file Chris Mason
2026-11-09 23:51 ` [PATCH v6 03/10] xfs: don't change the block map under a dirty folio Chris Mason
2026-11-09 23:51 ` [PATCH v6 04/10] iomap: don't punch delalloc under a dirty EOF block Chris Mason
2026-11-10  9:43   ` Carlos Maiolino
2026-11-11 11:21     ` Christian Brauner
2026-11-11 13:24       ` Carlos Maiolino
2026-11-09 23:51 ` [PATCH v6 05/10] fs: validate atomic writes after O_APPEND and limits Chris Mason
2026-11-10  9:41   ` Carlos Maiolino
2026-11-10 15:26     ` Chris Mason
2026-11-10 16:20       ` Carlos Maiolino
2026-11-09 23:51 ` [PATCH v6 06/10] xfs: recheck direct write alignment after write checks Chris Mason
2026-11-09 23:51 ` Chris Mason [this message]
2026-11-09 23:51 ` [PATCH v6 08/10] xfs: refuse writes to files racing with realtime inode flag changes Chris Mason
2026-11-09 23:51 ` [PATCH v6 09/10] xfs: refuse fallocate racing with realtime " Chris Mason
2026-11-09 23:51 ` [PATCH v6 10/10] xfs: restart faults " Chris Mason
2026-11-10  9:45 ` [PATCH v6 00/10] reflink and atomic write bugs Carlos Maiolino
2026-11-10 15:56   ` Chris Mason
2026-11-10 16:22     ` Carlos Maiolino
2026-11-10 16:32       ` Chris Mason
2026-11-10 17:00         ` Carlos Maiolino

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=20261109235111.14129-8-mason@kernel.org \
    --to=mason@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-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --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