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 0B6215FDA7; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:56:30 +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=1729176991; cv=none; b=CJrL0r3CjgJTe5VjJfy0O8Ae1qJ8XD5wTFcngU3LQnMi5ZCqNjNjxrRw756FUKgcdNmboMsB9/+yENn/eFOIOZtFiHcJJovsvhd/ddQOOcwVJkaLoEYcud5QCKk53w72bbfTJ95PtuQhfKVAl9CgzdEHfOphSwkZBaMHzqUmTBM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729176991; c=relaxed/simple; bh=kSDJbvRZM2zer66FVUrux01A1ru+NxMGvOFWZZj7jOQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=j4o2sYJRECpfghO5M0FOBWBaBYCfcEhmrhh1qrTdt5DvRzQr1rTQ1dQ5x1Yrk7VzuJe1nWTV0kxP8bT5CTH9ilK7W6gkLLdDKzinZVWGdOiViZGIlDtlLgRTy+hzPBn1BiUDa+BwcN6WalNE1QmWb/EhbntHHPBZMWuGkI8oYPc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=qMgeN5xT; 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="qMgeN5xT" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95103C4CECD; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:56:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1729176990; bh=kSDJbvRZM2zer66FVUrux01A1ru+NxMGvOFWZZj7jOQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=qMgeN5xTMCE9a5mVBGncegfDv02IqePCrfgme5JRWqKDwHtzdH2rzExn1iqdyzmt8 er18+ql5WOaKn7y4vrZrh7AYyus1PCIbsbeciOJN+PfJcoLpIIHL9B7pNugUb6P+dq 4sAiG/3azm59oH9cJpbh/szRZR406lUjwSodfg/NXa8+U6QsnT02mUHcQAYdeSuH85 vBvrth9+05rACYOO1qqrNbdCVjET3T1CxLeUUW989fiVCM9hoT2BjLvNRimnce3Ios U8CbYNgymoKN49naZdEGytC+2XUsDuUEhoakzM+/uVcttdVgs3GXO9TTKax6Q0K6F0 Sqo8TzamcnM7w== Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 07:56:30 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Ojaswin Mujoo Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Ritesh Harjani , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dchinner@redhat.com, Chandan Babu R , Christoph Hellwig , nirjhar@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] xfs: Check for delayed allocations before setting extsize Message-ID: <20241017145630.GU21853@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20241011145427.266614-1-ojaswin@linux.ibm.com> <20241011163830.GX21853@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20241011164057.GY21853@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20241014152856.GG21853@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20241015162237.GX21853@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@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: On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 12:33:32PM +0530, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ojaswin Mujoo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks good now, > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > 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? Not really. Most of my testing comes from setting up an entire vm config with extszinherit=X in the MKFS_OPTIONS. I wonder if we need a single generic test to kick the tires on the functionality just to make sure that everyone runs it even if they only do an all-defaults testrun? --D > Regards, > ojaswin > > > > > --D > > > > > Regards, > > > Ojaswin > > > > > > > > > > > --D > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Ojaswin > > > > > > > > > > > > > XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, ip->i_extsize) != fa->fsx_extsize) > > > > > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > 2.43.5 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >