From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f180.google.com (mail-pl1-f180.google.com [209.85.214.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0669A2A1B8 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2024 04:01:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.180 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726027303; cv=none; b=saG6OBA94DZRXuf44sbW5V9mLqAKIe5JUCjnUlJ0IeHW+6zA7/ffvRurX9A5U073luljjJqZAVV4e5vAjpyxS98UiSaGa3YhDMh25DKcSLd/87neld8EqONkBxFeYwf64lXtJWHcUctRdy+Oze+w2Ad6fQAED97Qp70mM1AkIRg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726027303; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VoRq06QNazvVLdoChwwE1pE68Wv3dBOlX/O48670LJ4=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=oRx+z44qCGICr2Lm8caHm2KvJXIDiSDPcqIDzoMpNfv72Rszr71Q6RdaislaCGiiSvqPGoPnZYUIS4TWerWo07soDSQRI9NW6CDrqhzjwz4R++MZGzRDiUqHOrhc0sKUYksNOukX/wN05P5L58ew7Bclpl+RsF1M3Dqlcemm10k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=UfuxPnWg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.180 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="UfuxPnWg" Received: by mail-pl1-f180.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-20570b42f24so16447005ad.1 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 21:01:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1726027301; x=1726632101; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:references :in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VoRq06QNazvVLdoChwwE1pE68Wv3dBOlX/O48670LJ4=; b=UfuxPnWgsQSXk2e5U+gUGWyZu/8leC+PkNGdM1E6vhrpvM4kNPbW9PadAWZp5I05rw LIHkjk51pvYRiMAFMW1nVhpb9weR27H3C5yD4tdchgVqVlNMpLEGEmymmuGKndlR5MQz BlQgU6GacZTyXuzWsgsSYF6sdNzOJmhiKbPI9DSu9epXKF0XDfs2Py+4acebjPuB5p/D Rag65XqKfYW1dngXcRzSud3H3kpZW2OV8s4hEKfeUzcHim/qvK344shXug+HalqG3Lyp ogKi/NOibFZE3Li7rGO/6F3kqUoy53WwcyEBPWin1qVzdf2EeTkadEsk/hfNR787ve8R rUhQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1726027301; x=1726632101; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:references :in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VoRq06QNazvVLdoChwwE1pE68Wv3dBOlX/O48670LJ4=; b=J4gAnLssg0ImzjkXJ0umi+uTnE+7ew+RNw5ugHhyewlQnuuKZlwc+2wIye98aAVC4P kUeCF4n2kzatKRKbbu9IJhhhqnP/E7X2C1qdODoAeHOqfuukzLRGqtsx4/0vLmoc/vRy cfzr9XN5voFbb8zK9sw2q8rOL3XqeRk6LUdhN3sjXdihMg31imqG/0lbtMoyKtgiOfZX A4OWi20V5+sxCsen2IcA6Qak2JhNKY0wJhA5t1laHZjZ9SX8qALnTU6VtRBr13TxVeAV qLAd+sHKNON6jnCvqdLimr+KcoxgqxzMPOKV1cWPvgO9gUqFr2Sj7ccSSOvDujBqN5JI Jt3g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yygv0bO8GgVr/Mg7euLYHoacOCRYADXubpeXGbzs/pd/XTEfX9P 6h97tDBsAfoP9wQKG6NQkvnRIcy7EMK11aYkuE5K5SxbzOD/Kown X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH5urfty8sNL5l+vfk13T3z6f9FOlLCQBOTXy55acBv1qNX/8kroJrLG0eZ3/eKIcmIFXZMpQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:22ce:b0:206:8d6e:cff9 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2075219d268mr30105655ad.4.1726027300655; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 21:01:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.172.23.18] ([103.172.183.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-20710e324a3sm55043435ad.69.2024.09.10.21.01.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 10 Sep 2024 21:01:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iomap: Do not unshare exents beyond EOF From: Julian Sun To: Brian Foster Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, jack@suse.cz, brauner@kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, djwong@kernel.org, david@fromorbit.com, hch@lst.de, syzbot+296b1c84b9cbf306e5a0@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 12:01:34 +0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20240905102425.1106040-1-sunjunchao2870@gmail.com> <767963be0ce83221792d58667afd8b4ccc4f160d.camel@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4-2 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Tue, 2024-09-10 at 09:56 -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 09:25:41PM +0800, Julian Sun wrote: > > Brian Foster =E4=BA=8E2024=E5=B9=B49=E6=9C=8810=E6= =97=A5=E5=91=A8=E4=BA=8C 20:29=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > > >=20 > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 03:03:18PM +0800, Julian Sun wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2024-09-09 at 15:29 -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 01:40:24AM +0800, Julian Sun wrote: > > > > > > Brian Foster =E4=BA=8E2024=E5=B9=B49=E6=9C= =889=E6=97=A5=E5=91=A8=E4=B8=80 21:27=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 08:15:43PM +0800, Julian Sun wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Brian, > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > Brian Foster =E4=BA=8E2024=E5=B9=B49= =E6=9C=887=E6=97=A5=E5=91=A8=E5=85=AD 03:11=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 06:24:24PM +0800, Julian Sun > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Attempting to unshare extents beyond EOF will trigger > > > > > > > > > > the need zeroing case, which in turn triggers a > > > > > > > > > > warning. > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, let's skip the unshare process if extents > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > beyond EOF. > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > Reported-and-tested-by: > > > > > > > > > > syzbot+296b1c84b9cbf306e5a0@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > > > > > > > > > Closes: > > > > > > > > > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=3D296b1c84b9cbf= 30 > > > > > > > > > > 6e5a0 > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 32a38a499104 ("iomap: use write_begin to read > > > > > > > > > > pages to unshare") > > > > > > > > > > Inspired-by: Dave Chinner > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Julian Sun > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0fs/iomap/buffered-io.c | 3 +++ > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A01 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c > > > > > > > > > > b/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c > > > > > > > > > > index f420c53d86ac..8898d5ec606f 100644 > > > > > > > > > > --- a/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c > > > > > > > > > > @@ -1340,6 +1340,9 @@ static loff_t > > > > > > > > > > iomap_unshare_iter(struct iomap_iter *iter) > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 /* don't bother with hol= es or unwritten extents > > > > > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 if (srcmap->type =3D=3D = IOMAP_HOLE || srcmap->type =3D=3D > > > > > > > > > > IOMAP_UNWRITTEN) > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 return length; > > > > > > > > > > +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 /* don't try to unshare any e= xtents beyond EOF. > > > > > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > > > +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 if (pos > i_size_read(iter->i= node)) > > > > > > > > > > +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 return length; > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > Hi Julian, > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > What about if pos starts within EOF and the operation > > > > > > > > > > extends beyond it? > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > Extents within EOF will be unshared as usual. Details are > > > > > > > > below. > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > I ask because I think I've reproduced this scenario, > > > > > > > > > > though it is a bit > > > > > > > > > > tricky and has dependencies... > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > For one, it seems to depend on the cowblocks patch I > > > > > > > > > > recently posted > > > > > > > > > > here [1] (though I don't think this is necessarily a > > > > > > > > > > problem with the > > > > > > > > > > patch, it just depends on keeping COW fork blocks > > > > > > > > > > around after the > > > > > > > > > > unshare). With that, I reproduce via fsx with unshare > > > > > > > > > > range support [2] > > > > > > > > > > using the ops file appended below [3] on a -bsize=3D1k > > > > > > > > > > XFS fs. > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > I haven't quite characterized the full sequence other > > > > > > > > > > than it looks like > > > > > > > > > > the unshare walks across EOF with a shared data fork > > > > > > > > > > block and COW fork > > > > > > > > > > delalloc, presumably finds the post-eof part of the > > > > > > > > > > folio !uptodate (so > > > > > > > > > > iomap_adjust_read_range() doesn't skip it), and then > > > > > > > > > > trips over the > > > > > > > > > > warning and error return associated with the folio > > > > > > > > > > zeroing in > > > > > > > > > > __iomap_write_begin(). > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > The scenario has already been reproduced by syzbot[1]. The > > > > > > > > reproducer > > > > > > > > provided by syzbot constructed the following extent maps > > > > > > > > for a file of > > > > > > > > size 0xE00 before fallocate unshare: > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > 0 - 4k: shared between two files > > > > > > > > 4k - 6k: hole beyond EOF, not shared > > > > > > > > 6k - 8k: delalloc extends > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > Then the reproducer attempted to unshare the extent between > > > > > > > > 0 and > > > > > > > > 0x2000 bytes, but the file size is 0xE00. This is likely > > > > > > > > the scenario > > > > > > > > you were referring to? > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > Yes, sort of.. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > Eventually the unshare code does: > > > > > > > > first map: 0 - 4k - unshare successfully. > > > > > > > > second map: 4k - 6k - hole, skip. Beyond EOF. > > > > > > > > third map: 6k - 8k - delalloc, beyond EOF so needs zeroing. > > > > > > > > Fires warnings because UNSHARE. > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > During the first call to iomap_unshare_iter(), > > > > > > > > iomap_length() returned > > > > > > > > 4k, so 4k bytes were unshared. > > > > > > > > See discuss here[2] for more details. > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > This all kind of has me wondering.. do we know the > > > > > > > > > purpose of this > > > > > > > > > warning/error in the first place? It seems like it's more > > > > > > > > > of an > > > > > > > > > "unexpected situation" than a specific problem. E.g., > > > > > > > > > assuming the same > > > > > > > > > page were mmap'd, I _think_ the read fault path would do > > > > > > > > > the same sort > > > > > > > > > of zeroing such that the unshare would see a fully > > > > > > > > > uptodate folio and > > > > > > > > > carry on as normal. I added the mapread op to the opsfile > > > > > > > > > below to give > > > > > > > > > that a quick test (remove the "skip" text to enable it), > > > > > > > > > and it seems to > > > > > > > > > prevent the error, but I've not confirmed whether that > > > > > > > > > theory is > > > > > > > > > actually what's happening. > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > FWIW, I also wonder if another way to handle this would > > > > > > > > > > be to just > > > > > > > > > > restrict the range of iomap_file_unshare() to within > > > > > > > > > > EOF. IOW if a > > > > > > > > > > caller passes a range beyond EOF, just process whatever > > > > > > > > > > part of the > > > > > > > > > > range falls within EOF. It seems iomap isn't > > > > > > > > > > responsible for the file > > > > > > > > > > extending aspect of the fallocate unshare command > > > > > > > > > > anyways. > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > It already does 'just process whatever part of the range > > > > > > > > falls within EOF'. > > > > > > > > Check the above case. > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if I fully understand what you mean. This > > > > > > > > patch does not > > > > > > > > prevent unsharing extents within the EOF. This patch checks > > > > > > > > if pos is > > > > > > > > beyond EOF, instead of checking if pos + length is beyond > > > > > > > > EOF. So the > > > > > > > > extents within EOF should be unshared as usual. > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > I'm not concerned about preventing unsharing. I'm concerned > > > > > > > that this > > > > > > > patch doesn't always prevent attempts to unshare post-eof > > > > > > > ranges. I > > > > > > > think the difference here is that in the variant I was > > > > > > > hitting, we end > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > up with a mapping that starts within EOF and ends beyond > > > > > > > > EOF, whereas > > > > > > > > the syzbot variant produces a scenario where the > > > > > > > > problematic mapping > > > > > > > > always starts beyond EOF. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > This is not true. In the case above, the syzbot did indeed > > > > > > unshare the > > > > > > extents between 0-4k, which were started within EOF and ended > > > > > > beyond > > > > > > EOF. The specific variants here are: pos:0 len:0x1000 EOF: > > > > > > 0xE00. And > > > > > > the unshare code successfully unshared extents between 0 and > > > > > > 4k. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > During the next loop in iomap_file_unshare(), the pos became > > > > > > 0x1000, > > > > > > which is beyond EOF.=C2=A0 What this patch does is to skip the > > > > > > unshare > > > > > > during the second loop. > > > > > > Is there anything I misunderstand=EF=BC=9F > > > > >=20 > > > > > Hmm, what block size? Does the associated mapping have at least > > > > > one full > > > > > block beyond EOF? If you have a map at offset 0, length 0x1000 > > > > > and EOF > > > > > at 0xE00, then unless you have 512b blocks it sounds like the EOF > > > > > block > > > > > actually starts within EOF. > > > >=20 > > > > The block size here is 2k, and there isn't a full block beyond EOF > > > > within > > > > this extent map. > > >=20 > > > Ok. That likely explains the difference in behavior. The fsx variant > > > has > > > a mapping that starts within EOF and has at least one post-EOF block > > > that unshare attempts to process. > > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > > The variant I'm seeing is more like this.. consider a -bsize=3D1k > > > > > fs, a > > > > > file size of 0x3c400, and an EOF mapping of (offset 0x3c000, > > > > > length > > > > > 0x4000). The EOF folio in this case is 4k in size and starts at > > > > > the same > > > > > 0x3c000 offset as the EOF mapping. > > > > >=20 > > > > > So with 1k blocks, the EOF mapping starts one block before EOF > > > > > and > > > > > extends well beyond it. What happens in the test case is that > > > > > iomap_unshare_iter() is called with the EOF folio, pos 0x3c000, > > > > > length > > > > > 0x800, and where the block at offset 0x3c400 is not marked > > > > > uptodate. pos > > > > > is thus within EOF, but the while loop in __iomap_write_begin() > > > > > walks > > > > > past it and attempts to process one block beyond EOF. > > > >=20 > > > > Ok, so the key point here is that there is a full block beyond EOF > > > > within > > > > the associated extent map, which is different with the scenario > > > > reproduced > > > > by syzbot. > > > > According to the Dave's comments, the trimming behavior seems like > > > > should > > > > be done in filesystem(e.g.,xfs), instead of iomap. I will > > > > reconsider this scenario. > > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > Seems reasonable, but I don't agree that is a suitable fix for iomap. > > > To > > > be clear, it's perfectly fine for the fs to trim the range however it > > > sees fit (i.e. no shared blocks beyond EOF in XFS), but we should > > > also > > > recognize that iomap is a generic layer and unshare is currently > > > implemented to trip over itself, warn and fail if passed a post-eof > > > range. > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > > I still suspect that just making unshare work correctly around > > > > i_size > > > > might be the more elegant long term solution, but that is not > > > > totally > > > > clear. IMO, as long as unshare is written to intentionally trip > > > > over > > > > itself for post-eof ranges, it should either trim the range or > > > > check for > > > > valid parameters and document the limitation. Otherwise we just > > > > leave a > > > > landmine for the next caller to have to work through the same > > > > problems, > > > > which is particularly subtle since the higher level fallocate > > > > unshare > > > > mode supports post-eof ranges. Just my .02. > >=20 > > Yeah, totally agreed. I prefer to do the trimming in the vfs layer > > just like what generic_copy_file_checks() does, instead of a specific > > file system. Maybe we need a helper function > > generic_fallocate_checks(). But it requires more thought and testing. > >=20 >=20 > I would agree with that if not for the subtle difference between > fallocate unshare and the iomap implementation. fallocate unshare is > basically just a behavior modifier for how shared blocks are handled by > mode=3D0 preallocation, so AIUI it fully supports post-eof ranges. It can > extend the file size or leave it unchanged (based on whether KEEP_SIZE > is set) and preallocate beyond EOF. >=20 > IOW, it might be perfectly valid for a caller to run an fallocate > unshare across EOF that happens to unshare various shared blocks within > EOF, and then preallocate and extend the file size as part of the same > command. The functional responsibility just happens to be split between > iomap and the fs. Yeah, precisely. It seems that fallocate unshare do support post-eof ranges, but iomap_unshare_iter() doesn't expect any blocks beyond eof. Maybe the semantics here is that any blocks beyond eof shouldn't be shared, but I can not confirm that. Also, it's possible that blocks beyond eof which may belong to an extent acrossing eof may be passed to iomap_unshare_iter() in some cases. It seems we should figure out the purpose of this warning.=20 Hi, Christoph. Do you remember why the warning was introduced? Looking forward to your reply after you return from vacation. >=20 > Brian >=20 > > >=20 > > > Brian > > >=20 > > > > Thanks for your comments and review. > > > > >=20 > > > > > Brian > > > > >=20 > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > So IOW, this patch works for the syzbot variant because it > > > > > > > happens to > > > > > > > reproduce a situation where pos will be beyond EOF, but that > > > > > > > is an > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > assumption that might not always be true. The fsx generated > > > > > > > > variant runs > > > > > > > > a sequence that produces a mapping that spans across EOF, > > > > > > > > which means > > > > > > > > that pos is within EOF at the start of unshare, so unshare > > > > > > > > proceeds to > > > > > > > > walk across the EOF boundary, the corresponding EOF folio > > > > > > > > is not fully > > > > > > > > uptodate, and thus write begin wants to do partial zeroing > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > fails/warns. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > Yeah, it's exactly what the syzbot does. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > I suspect that if the higher level range were trimmed to be > > > > > > > within EOF > > > > > > > in iomap_file_unshare(), that would prevent this problem in > > > > > > > either case. > > > > > > > Note that this was on a -bsize=3D1k fs, so what I'm not total= ly > > > > > > > sure about > > > > > > > is whether skipping zeroing as such would be a problem with > > > > > > > larger FSBs. > > > > > > > My initial thinking was this might not be possible since the > > > > > > > EOF folio > > > > > > > should be fully uptodate in that case, but that probably > > > > > > > requires some > > > > > > > thought/review/testing. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > BTW, maybe the check here should be > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 if (pos >=3D i_size_read(iter= ->inode)) > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > If there is any misunderstanding, please let me know, > > > > > > > > thanks. > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/0000000000008964f1061f8c32b6@go > > > > > > > > ogle.com/T/ > > > > > > > > [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240903054808.126799-1- > > > > > > > > sunjunchao2870@gmail.com/ > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux- > > > > > > > > > xfs/20240906114051.120743-1-bfoster@redhat.com/ > > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/20240906185606.136402-1- > > > > > > > > > bfoster@redhat.com/ > > > > > > > > > [3] fsx ops file: > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > fallocate 0x3bc00 0x400 0 > > > > > > > > > write 0x3bc00 0x800 0x3c000 > > > > > > > > > clone_range 0x3bc00 0x400 0x0 0x3c400 > > > > > > > > > skip mapread 0x3c000 0x400 0x3c400 > > > > > > > > > fallocate 0x3bc00 0xc00 0x3c400 unshare > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Julian Sun > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Julian Sun > > > > > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > > > Julian Sun > > > >=20 > > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > --=20 > > Julian Sun > >=20 >=20 Thanks, --=20 Julian Sun