Re: [PATCH] fuse: remove WARN_ON_ONCE() from fuse_iomap_writeback_{range,submit}()

Luis Henriques
2025-09-02T18:07:38Z

Hi Joanne,

On Tue, Sep 02 2025, Joanne Koong wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 8:22 AM Luis Henriques <luis@igalia.com> wrote:
>>
>> The usage of WARN_ON_ONCE doesn't seem to be necessary in these functions.
>> All fuse_iomap_writeback_submit() call sites already ensure that wpc->wb_ctx
>> contains a valid fuse_fill_wb_data.
>
> Hi Luis,
>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding the purpose of WARN()s and when they should
> be added, but I thought its main purpose is to guarantee that the
> assumptions you're relying on are correct, even if that can be
> logically deduced in the code. That's how I see it being used in other
> parts of the fuse and non-fuse codebase. For instance, to take one
> example, in the main fuse dev.c code, there's a WARN_ON in
> fuse_request_queue_background() that the request has the FR_BACKGROUND
> bit set. All call sites already ensure that the FR_BACKGROUND bit is
> set when they send it as a background request. I don't feel strongly
> about whether we decide to remove the WARN or not, but it would be
> useful to know as a guiding principle when WARNs should be added vs
> when they should not.

I'm obviously not an authority on the subject, but those two WARN_ON
caught my attention because if they were ever triggered, the kernel would
crash anyway and the WARNs would be useless.

For example, in fuse_iomap_writeback_range() you have:

struct fuse_fill_wb_data *data = wpc->wb_ctx;
struct fuse_writepage_args *wpa = data->wpa;

[...]

WARN_ON_ONCE(!data);

In this case, if 'data' was NULL, you would see a BUG while initialising
'wpa' and the WARN wouldn't help.

I'm not 100% sure these WARN_ON_ONCE() should be dropped. But if there is
a small chance of that assertion to ever be true, then there's a need to
fix the code and make it safer. I.e. the 'wpa' initialisation should be
done after the WARN_ON_ONCE() and that WARN_ON_ONCE() should be changed to
something like:

if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!data))
return -EIO; /* or other errno */

Does it make sense?

As I said, I can send another patch to keep those WARNs and fix these
error paths. But again, after going through the call sites I believe it's
safe to assume that WARN_ON_ONCE() will never trigger.

Cheers,
--
Luís

> Thanks,
> Joanne
>
>>
>> Function fuse_iomap_writeback_range() also seems to always be called with a
>> valid value. But even if this wasn't the case, there would be a crash
>> before this WARN_ON_ONCE() because ->wpa is being accessed before it.
>>
>
> I agree, for the fuse_iomap_writeback_range() case, it would be more
> useful if "wpa = data->wpa" was moved below that warn.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis@igalia.com>
>> ---
>> As I'm saying above, I _think_ there's no need for these WARN_ON_ONCE().
>> However, if I'm wrong and they are required, I believe there's a need for
>> a different patch (I can send one) to actually prevent a kernel crash.
>>
>> fs/fuse/file.c | 4 ----
>> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
>> index 5525a4520b0f..fac52f9fb333 100644
>> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
>> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
>> @@ -2142,8 +2142,6 @@ static ssize_t fuse_iomap_writeback_range(struct iomap_writepage_ctx *wpc,
>> struct fuse_conn *fc = get_fuse_conn(inode);
>> loff_t offset = offset_in_folio(folio, pos);
>>
>> - WARN_ON_ONCE(!data);
>> -
>> if (!data->ff) {
>> data->ff = fuse_write_file_get(fi);
>> if (!data->ff)
>> @@ -2182,8 +2180,6 @@ static int fuse_iomap_writeback_submit(struct iomap_writepage_ctx *wpc,
>> {
>> struct fuse_fill_wb_data *data = wpc->wb_ctx;
>>
>> - WARN_ON_ONCE(!data);
>> -
>> if (data->wpa) {
>> WARN_ON(!data->wpa->ia.ap.num_folios);
>> fuse_writepages_send(wpc->inode, data);