Re: [PATCH v3] xfs: Check for delayed allocations before setting extsize

Ojaswin Mujoo
2024-10-17T07:03:49Z

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 09:22:37AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 12:23:21PM +0530, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 08:28:56AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 03:02:45PM +0530, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 09:40:57AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 09:38:30AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 08:24:27PM +0530, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> > > > > > > Extsize is allowed to be set on files with no data in it. For this,
> > > > > > > we were checking if the files have extents but missed to check if
> > > > > > > delayed extents were present. This patch adds that check.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > While we are at it, also refactor this check into a helper since
> > > > > > > its used in some other places as well like xfs_inactive() or
> > > > > > > xfs_ioctl_setattr_xflags()
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > **Without the patch (SUCCEEDS)**
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > $ xfs_io -c 'open -f testfile' -c 'pwrite 0 1024' -c 'extsize 65536'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote 1024/1024 bytes at offset 0
> > > > > > > 1 KiB, 1 ops; 0.0002 sec (4.628 MiB/sec and 4739.3365 ops/sec)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > **With the patch (FAILS as expected)**
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > $ xfs_io -c 'open -f testfile' -c 'pwrite 0 1024' -c 'extsize 65536'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote 1024/1024 bytes at offset 0
> > > > > > > 1 KiB, 1 ops; 0.0002 sec (4.628 MiB/sec and 4739.3365 ops/sec)
> > > > > > > xfs_io: FS_IOC_FSSETXATTR testfile: Invalid argument
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looks good now,
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> > > > >
> > > > > That said, could you add a fixes tag for the xfs_ioctl_setattr_*
> > > > > changes, please?
> > > >
> > > > Actually a small doubt Darrick regarding the Fixes commit (asked inline
> > > > below):
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --D
> > > > >
> > > > > > --D
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h | 5 +++++
> > > > > > > fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c | 4 ++--
> > > > > > > 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > > > > > > index bcc277fc0a83..19dcb569a3e7 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > > > > > > @@ -1409,7 +1409,7 @@ xfs_inactive(
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if (S_ISREG(VFS_I(ip)->i_mode) &&
> > > > > > > (ip->i_disk_size != 0 || XFS_ISIZE(ip) != 0 ||
> > > > > > > - ip->i_df.if_nextents > 0 || ip->i_delayed_blks > 0))
> > > > > > > + xfs_inode_has_filedata(ip)))
> > > > > > > truncate = 1;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if (xfs_iflags_test(ip, XFS_IQUOTAUNCHECKED)) {
> > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
> > > > > > > index 97ed912306fd..03944b6c5fba 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
> > > > > > > @@ -292,6 +292,11 @@ static inline bool xfs_is_cow_inode(struct xfs_inode *ip)
> > > > > > > return xfs_is_reflink_inode(ip) || xfs_is_always_cow_inode(ip);
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +static inline bool xfs_inode_has_filedata(const struct xfs_inode *ip)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > + return ip->i_df.if_nextents > 0 || ip->i_delayed_blks > 0;
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > * Check if an inode has any data in the COW fork. This might be often false
> > > > > > > * even for inodes with the reflink flag when there is no pending COW operation.
> > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c
> > > > > > > index a20d426ef021..2567fd2a0994 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c
> > > > > > > @@ -481,7 +481,7 @@ xfs_ioctl_setattr_xflags(
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if (rtflag != XFS_IS_REALTIME_INODE(ip)) {
> > > > > > > /* Can't change realtime flag if any extents are allocated. */
> > > > > > > - if (ip->i_df.if_nextents || ip->i_delayed_blks)
> > > > > > > + if (xfs_inode_has_filedata(ip))
> > > > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > @@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ xfs_ioctl_setattr_check_extsize(
> > > > > > > if (!fa->fsx_valid)
> > > > > > > return 0;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - if (S_ISREG(VFS_I(ip)->i_mode) && ip->i_df.if_nextents &&
> > > > > > > + if (S_ISREG(VFS_I(ip)->i_mode) && xfs_inode_has_filedata(ip) &&
> > > >
> > > > So seems like there have been lots of changes to this particular line
> > > > mostly as a part of refactoring other areas but seems like the actual
> > > > commit that introduced it was:
> > > >
> > > > commit e94af02a9cd7b6590bec81df9d6ab857d6cf322f
> > > > Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sgi.com>
> > > > Date: Wed Nov 2 15:10:41 2005 +1100
> > > >
> > > > [XFS] fix old xfs_setattr mis-merge from irix; mostly harmless esp if not
> > > > using xfs rt
> > > >
> > > > Before this we were actually checking ip->i_delayed_blks correctly. So just wanted
> > > > to confirm that the fixes would have the above commit right?
> > > >
> > > > If this looks okay I'll send a revision with this above tags:
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: e94af02a9cd7 ("[XFS] fix old xfs_setattr mis-merge from irix; mostly harmless esp if not using xfs rt")
> > >
> > > Yeah, that sounds fine. Want to write a quick fstest to bang on
> > > xfs_ioctl_setattr_check_extsize to force everyone to backport it? :)
> >
> > Got it, thanks, I'll send a v4.
> >
> > Regarding the tests, we were thinking of adding more comprehensive
> > generic tests for extsize now that ext4 is also implementing it. We
> > have a new team member Nirjhar (cc'd) who is interested in writing the
> > xfstest and is working on it as we speak.
>
> Heh, welcome! :)
>
> > Since the area is new to him, it might take a bit of time to get that
> > out, hope that is okay?
>
> Sounds good to me. You might see how many of the tests/xfs/ stuff can
> be pulled up to tests/generic/ as a starting point.

Sure Darrick, I believe you mean how many of the extsize related tests
we can pull up right?

So I was checking this and I could find some relevant tests:

* Looking into existing tests around extsize:
* xfs/074
* Check some extent size hint boundary conditions that can result in
MAXEXTLEN overflows.
* This looks specific to xfs however

* xfs/208
* Testing interactinon b/w cowextsize and extsize but again seems xfs specific

* xfs/207
* basic test on setting and getting (cow)extsize on file with data or empty
* This is a subset of the features we are testing with our test, but only
for extsize not cowextsize.
* So we can probably remove the equivalent tests from here when we add the generic
one.

* xfs/419
* These are related to extsize inherit feature but with rtinherit.
* The current patchset in ext4 doesn't implement this extszinherit but it
might be something we might want to do in the future
* We can look into hoisting the extszinherit related tests at some point

* The other ones I looked into around extsize again seemed to be specific to
xfx but maybe i missed something.

Are there any other tests you had in mind Darrick?

Regards,
ojaswin

>
> --D
>
> > Regards,
> > Ojaswin
> >
> > >
> > > --D
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Ojaswin
> > > >
> > > > > > > XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, ip->i_extsize) != fa->fsx_extsize)
> > > > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 2.43.5
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >