Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: change the way of handling range.len in F2FS_IOC_SEC_TRIM_FILE

[Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>]

On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/7/10 11:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/10, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> >> From: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>
> >>
> >> Changed the way of handling range.len of F2FS_IOC_SEC_TRIM_FILE.
> >>  1. Added -1 value support for range.len to signify the end of file.
> >>  2. If the end of the range passes over the end of file, it means until
> >>     the end of file.
> >>  3. ignored the case of that range.len is zero to prevent the function
> >>     from making end_addr zero and triggering different behaviour of
> >>     the function.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>
> >> ---
> >>  fs/f2fs/file.c | 16 +++++++---------
> >>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> >> index 368c80f8e2a1..1c4601f99326 100644
> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> >> @@ -3813,21 +3813,19 @@ static int f2fs_sec_trim_file(struct file *filp, unsigned long arg)
> >>  	file_start_write(filp);
> >>  	inode_lock(inode);
> >>  
> >> -	if (f2fs_is_atomic_file(inode) || f2fs_compressed_file(inode)) {
> >> +	if (f2fs_is_atomic_file(inode) || f2fs_compressed_file(inode) ||
> >> +			range.start >= inode->i_size) {
> >>  		ret = -EINVAL;
> >>  		goto err;
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >> -	if (range.start >= inode->i_size) {
> >> -		ret = -EINVAL;
> >> +	if (range.len == 0)
> >>  		goto err;
> >> -	}
> >>  
> >> -	if (inode->i_size - range.start < range.len) {
> >> -		ret = -E2BIG;
> >> -		goto err;
> >> -	}
> >> -	end_addr = range.start + range.len;
> >> +	if (range.len == (u64)-1 || inode->i_size - range.start < range.len)
> >> +		end_addr = inode->i_size;
> 
> We can remove 'range.len == (u64)-1' condition since later condition can cover
> this?
> 
> > 
> > Hmm, what if there are blocks beyond i_size? Do we need to check i_blocks for
> 
> The blocks beyond i_size will never be written, there won't be any valid message
> there, so we don't need to worry about that.

I don't think we have a way to guarantee the order of i_size and block
allocation in f2fs. See f2fs_write_begin and f2fs_write_end.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > ending criteria?
> > 
> >> +	else
> >> +		end_addr = range.start + range.len;
> >>  
> >>  	to_end = (end_addr == inode->i_size);
> >>  	if (!IS_ALIGNED(range.start, F2FS_BLKSIZE) ||
> >> -- 
> >> 2.27.0.383.g050319c2ae-goog
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> >> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> > .
> >