Mailing List Archive

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 07:17:35PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
> + if ((flags & IOMAP_ZERO) && imap.br_startoff <= offset_fsb &&
> + isnullstartblock(imap.br_startblock)) {
> + xfs_fileoff_t eof_fsb = XFS_B_TO_FSB(mp, XFS_ISIZE(ip));
> +
> + if (offset_fsb >= eof_fsb)
> + goto convert_delay;
> + if (end_fsb > eof_fsb) {
> + end_fsb = eof_fsb;
> + xfs_trim_extent(&imap, offset_fsb, end_fsb - offset_fsb);

Nit: overly long line here.

I've also tried to to a more comprehensive review, but this depends on
the rest of the series, which isn't in my linux-xfs folder for April.

I've your're not doing and instant revision it's usually much easier to
just review the whole series.

On 2024/4/25 20:22, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 07:17:35PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
>> + if ((flags & IOMAP_ZERO) && imap.br_startoff <= offset_fsb &&
>> + isnullstartblock(imap.br_startblock)) {
>> + xfs_fileoff_t eof_fsb = XFS_B_TO_FSB(mp, XFS_ISIZE(ip));
>> +
>> + if (offset_fsb >= eof_fsb)
>> + goto convert_delay;
>> + if (end_fsb > eof_fsb) {
>> + end_fsb = eof_fsb;
>> + xfs_trim_extent(&imap, offset_fsb, end_fsb - offset_fsb);
>
> Nit: overly long line here.
>
> I've also tried to to a more comprehensive review, but this depends on
> the rest of the series, which isn't in my linux-xfs folder for April.
>
> I've your're not doing and instant revision it's usually much easier to
> just review the whole series.
> .
>

Sure, I will resend the whole series.

Thanks,
Yi.

From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>

Current clone operation could be non-atomic if the destination of a file
is beyond EOF, user could get a file with corrupted (zeroed) data on
crash.

The problem is about preallocations. If you write some data into a file:

[A...B)

and XFS decides to preallocate some post-eof blocks, then it can create
a delayed allocation reservation:

[A.........D)

The writeback path tries to convert delayed extents to real ones by
allocating blocks. If there aren't enough contiguous free space, we can
end up with two extents, the first real and the second still delalloc:

[A....C)[C.D)

After that, both the in-memory and the on-disk file sizes are still B.
If we clone into the range [E...F) from another file:

[A....C)[C.D) [E...F)

then xfs_reflink_zero_posteof() calls iomap_zero_range() to zero out the
range [B, E) beyond EOF and flush it. Since [C, D) is still a delalloc
extent, its pagecache will be zeroed and both the in-memory and on-disk
size will be updated to D after flushing but before cloning. This is
wrong, because the user can see the size change and read the zeroes
while the clone operation is ongoing.

We need to keep the in-memory and on-disk size before the clone
operation starts, so instead of writing zeroes through the page cache
for delayed ranges beyond EOF, we convert these ranges to unwritten and
invalidate any cached data over that range beyond EOF.

Suggested-by: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
---
Changes since v4:

Move the delalloc converting hunk before searching the COW fork. Because
if the file has been reflinked and copied on write,
xfs_bmap_extsize_align() aligned the range of COW delalloc extent, after
the writeback, there might be some unwritten extents left over in the
COW fork that overlaps the delalloc extent we found in data fork.

data fork ...wwww|dddddddddd...
cow fork |uuuuuuuuuu...
^
i_size

In my v4, we search the COW fork before checking the delalloc extent,
goto found_cow tag and return unconverted delalloc srcmap in the above
case, so the delayed extent in the data fork will have no chance to
convert to unwritten, it will lead to delalloc extent residue and break
generic/522 after merging patch 6.

fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
index 236ee78aa75b..2857ef1b0272 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
@@ -1022,6 +1022,24 @@ xfs_buffered_write_iomap_begin(
goto out_unlock;
}

+ /*
+ * For zeroing, trim a delalloc extent that extends beyond the EOF
+ * block. If it starts beyond the EOF block, convert it to an
+ * unwritten extent.
+ */
+ if ((flags & IOMAP_ZERO) && imap.br_startoff <= offset_fsb &&
+ isnullstartblock(imap.br_startblock)) {
+ xfs_fileoff_t eof_fsb = XFS_B_TO_FSB(mp, XFS_ISIZE(ip));
+
+ if (offset_fsb >= eof_fsb)
+ goto convert_delay;
+ if (end_fsb > eof_fsb) {
+ end_fsb = eof_fsb;
+ xfs_trim_extent(&imap, offset_fsb,
+ end_fsb - offset_fsb);
+ }
+ }
+
/*
* Search the COW fork extent list even if we did not find a data fork
* extent. This serves two purposes: first this implements the
@@ -1167,6 +1185,17 @@ xfs_buffered_write_iomap_begin(
xfs_iunlock(ip, lockmode);
return xfs_bmbt_to_iomap(ip, iomap, &imap, flags, 0, seq);

+convert_delay:
+ xfs_iunlock(ip, lockmode);
+ truncate_pagecache(inode, offset);
+ error = xfs_bmapi_convert_delalloc(ip, XFS_DATA_FORK, offset,
+ iomap, NULL);
+ if (error)
+ return error;
+
+ trace_xfs_iomap_alloc(ip, offset, count, XFS_DATA_FORK, &imap);
+ return 0;
+
found_cow:
seq = xfs_iomap_inode_sequence(ip, 0);
if (imap.br_startoff <= offset_fsb) {
--
2.39.2

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 09:13:30PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
> From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
>
> Current clone operation could be non-atomic if the destination of a file
> is beyond EOF, user could get a file with corrupted (zeroed) data on
> crash.
>
> The problem is about preallocations. If you write some data into a file:
>
> [A...B)
>
> and XFS decides to preallocate some post-eof blocks, then it can create
> a delayed allocation reservation:
>
> [A.........D)
>
> The writeback path tries to convert delayed extents to real ones by
> allocating blocks. If there aren't enough contiguous free space, we can
> end up with two extents, the first real and the second still delalloc:
>
> [A....C)[C.D)
>
> After that, both the in-memory and the on-disk file sizes are still B.
> If we clone into the range [E...F) from another file:
>
> [A....C)[C.D) [E...F)
>
> then xfs_reflink_zero_posteof() calls iomap_zero_range() to zero out the
> range [B, E) beyond EOF and flush it. Since [C, D) is still a delalloc
> extent, its pagecache will be zeroed and both the in-memory and on-disk
> size will be updated to D after flushing but before cloning. This is
> wrong, because the user can see the size change and read the zeroes
> while the clone operation is ongoing.
>
> We need to keep the in-memory and on-disk size before the clone
> operation starts, so instead of writing zeroes through the page cache
> for delayed ranges beyond EOF, we convert these ranges to unwritten and
> invalidate any cached data over that range beyond EOF.
>
> Suggested-by: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
> ---
> Changes since v4:
>
> Move the delalloc converting hunk before searching the COW fork. Because
> if the file has been reflinked and copied on write,
> xfs_bmap_extsize_align() aligned the range of COW delalloc extent, after
> the writeback, there might be some unwritten extents left over in the
> COW fork that overlaps the delalloc extent we found in data fork.
>
> data fork ...wwww|dddddddddd...
> cow fork |uuuuuuuuuu...
> ^
> i_size
>
> In my v4, we search the COW fork before checking the delalloc extent,
> goto found_cow tag and return unconverted delalloc srcmap in the above
> case, so the delayed extent in the data fork will have no chance to
> convert to unwritten, it will lead to delalloc extent residue and break
> generic/522 after merging patch 6.

Hmmm. I suppose that works, but it feels a little funny to convert the
delalloc mapping in the data fork to unwritten /while/ there's unwritten
extents in the cow fork too. Would it make more sense to remap the cow
fork extents here?

OTOH unwritten extents in the cow fork get changed to written ones by
all the cow remapping functions. Soooo maybe we don't want to go
digging /that/ deep into the system.

Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>

--D

>
> fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
> index 236ee78aa75b..2857ef1b0272 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
> @@ -1022,6 +1022,24 @@ xfs_buffered_write_iomap_begin(
> goto out_unlock;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * For zeroing, trim a delalloc extent that extends beyond the EOF
> + * block. If it starts beyond the EOF block, convert it to an
> + * unwritten extent.
> + */
> + if ((flags & IOMAP_ZERO) && imap.br_startoff <= offset_fsb &&
> + isnullstartblock(imap.br_startblock)) {
> + xfs_fileoff_t eof_fsb = XFS_B_TO_FSB(mp, XFS_ISIZE(ip));
> +
> + if (offset_fsb >= eof_fsb)
> + goto convert_delay;
> + if (end_fsb > eof_fsb) {
> + end_fsb = eof_fsb;
> + xfs_trim_extent(&imap, offset_fsb,
> + end_fsb - offset_fsb);
> + }
> + }
> +
> /*
> * Search the COW fork extent list even if we did not find a data fork
> * extent. This serves two purposes: first this implements the
> @@ -1167,6 +1185,17 @@ xfs_buffered_write_iomap_begin(
> xfs_iunlock(ip, lockmode);
> return xfs_bmbt_to_iomap(ip, iomap, &imap, flags, 0, seq);
>
> +convert_delay:
> + xfs_iunlock(ip, lockmode);
> + truncate_pagecache(inode, offset);
> + error = xfs_bmapi_convert_delalloc(ip, XFS_DATA_FORK, offset,
> + iomap, NULL);
> + if (error)
> + return error;
> +
> + trace_xfs_iomap_alloc(ip, offset, count, XFS_DATA_FORK, &imap);
> + return 0;
> +
> found_cow:
> seq = xfs_iomap_inode_sequence(ip, 0);
> if (imap.br_startoff <= offset_fsb) {
> --
> 2.39.2
>
>

On 2024/4/26 2:29, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 09:13:30PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
>> From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
>>
>> Current clone operation could be non-atomic if the destination of a file
>> is beyond EOF, user could get a file with corrupted (zeroed) data on
>> crash.
>>
>> The problem is about preallocations. If you write some data into a file:
>>
>> [A...B)
>>
>> and XFS decides to preallocate some post-eof blocks, then it can create
>> a delayed allocation reservation:
>>
>> [A.........D)
>>
>> The writeback path tries to convert delayed extents to real ones by
>> allocating blocks. If there aren't enough contiguous free space, we can
>> end up with two extents, the first real and the second still delalloc:
>>
>> [A....C)[C.D)
>>
>> After that, both the in-memory and the on-disk file sizes are still B.
>> If we clone into the range [E...F) from another file:
>>
>> [A....C)[C.D) [E...F)
>>
>> then xfs_reflink_zero_posteof() calls iomap_zero_range() to zero out the
>> range [B, E) beyond EOF and flush it. Since [C, D) is still a delalloc
>> extent, its pagecache will be zeroed and both the in-memory and on-disk
>> size will be updated to D after flushing but before cloning. This is
>> wrong, because the user can see the size change and read the zeroes
>> while the clone operation is ongoing.
>>
>> We need to keep the in-memory and on-disk size before the clone
>> operation starts, so instead of writing zeroes through the page cache
>> for delayed ranges beyond EOF, we convert these ranges to unwritten and
>> invalidate any cached data over that range beyond EOF.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> Changes since v4:
>>
>> Move the delalloc converting hunk before searching the COW fork. Because
>> if the file has been reflinked and copied on write,
>> xfs_bmap_extsize_align() aligned the range of COW delalloc extent, after
>> the writeback, there might be some unwritten extents left over in the
>> COW fork that overlaps the delalloc extent we found in data fork.
>>
>> data fork ...wwww|dddddddddd...
>> cow fork |uuuuuuuuuu...
>> ^
>> i_size
>>
>> In my v4, we search the COW fork before checking the delalloc extent,
>> goto found_cow tag and return unconverted delalloc srcmap in the above
>> case, so the delayed extent in the data fork will have no chance to
>> convert to unwritten, it will lead to delalloc extent residue and break
>> generic/522 after merging patch 6.
>
> Hmmm. I suppose that works, but it feels a little funny to convert the
> delalloc mapping in the data fork to unwritten /while/ there's unwritten
> extents in the cow fork too. Would it make more sense to remap the cow
> fork extents here?
>

Yeah, it looks more reasonable. But from the original scene, the
xfs_bmap_extsize_align() aligned the new extent that added to the cow fork
could overlaps the unreflinked range, IIUC, I guess that spare range is
useless exactly, is there any situation that would use it?

> OTOH unwritten extents in the cow fork get changed to written ones by
> all the cow remapping functions. Soooo maybe we don't want to go
> digging /that/ deep into the system.
>

Yeah, I think it's okay now unless there's some strong claims.

> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
>
> --D
>
>>
>> fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
>> index 236ee78aa75b..2857ef1b0272 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
>> @@ -1022,6 +1022,24 @@ xfs_buffered_write_iomap_begin(
>> goto out_unlock;
>> }
>>
>> + /*
>> + * For zeroing, trim a delalloc extent that extends beyond the EOF
>> + * block. If it starts beyond the EOF block, convert it to an
>> + * unwritten extent.
>> + */
>> + if ((flags & IOMAP_ZERO) && imap.br_startoff <= offset_fsb &&
>> + isnullstartblock(imap.br_startblock)) {
>> + xfs_fileoff_t eof_fsb = XFS_B_TO_FSB(mp, XFS_ISIZE(ip));
>> +
>> + if (offset_fsb >= eof_fsb)
>> + goto convert_delay;
>> + if (end_fsb > eof_fsb) {
>> + end_fsb = eof_fsb;
>> + xfs_trim_extent(&imap, offset_fsb,
>> + end_fsb - offset_fsb);
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> /*
>> * Search the COW fork extent list even if we did not find a data fork
>> * extent. This serves two purposes: first this implements the
>> @@ -1167,6 +1185,17 @@ xfs_buffered_write_iomap_begin(
>> xfs_iunlock(ip, lockmode);
>> return xfs_bmbt_to_iomap(ip, iomap, &imap, flags, 0, seq);
>>
>> +convert_delay:
>> + xfs_iunlock(ip, lockmode);
>> + truncate_pagecache(inode, offset);
>> + error = xfs_bmapi_convert_delalloc(ip, XFS_DATA_FORK, offset,
>> + iomap, NULL);
>> + if (error)
>> + return error;
>> +
>> + trace_xfs_iomap_alloc(ip, offset, count, XFS_DATA_FORK, &imap);
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> found_cow:
>> seq = xfs_iomap_inode_sequence(ip, 0);
>> if (imap.br_startoff <= offset_fsb) {
>> --
>> 2.39.2
>>
>>

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 02:24:19PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
> Yeah, it looks more reasonable. But from the original scene, the
> xfs_bmap_extsize_align() aligned the new extent that added to the cow fork
> could overlaps the unreflinked range, IIUC, I guess that spare range is
> useless exactly, is there any situation that would use it?

I've just started staring at this (again) half an hour ago, and I fail
to understand the (pre-existing) logic in xfs_reflink_zero_posteof.

We obviously need to ensure data between i_size and the end of the
block that i_size sits in is zeroed (but IIRC we already do that
in write and truncate anyway). But what is the point of zeroing
any speculative preallocation beyond the last block that actually
contains data? Just truncating the preallocation and freeing
the delalloc and unwritten blocks seems like it would be way
more efficient.

On 2024/4/26 14:33, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 02:24:19PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
>> Yeah, it looks more reasonable. But from the original scene, the
>> xfs_bmap_extsize_align() aligned the new extent that added to the cow fork
>> could overlaps the unreflinked range, IIUC, I guess that spare range is
>> useless exactly, is there any situation that would use it?
>
> I've just started staring at this (again) half an hour ago, and I fail
> to understand the (pre-existing) logic in xfs_reflink_zero_posteof.
>
> We obviously need to ensure data between i_size and the end of the
> block that i_size sits in is zeroed (but IIRC we already do that
> in write and truncate anyway). But what is the point of zeroing
> any speculative preallocation beyond the last block that actually
> contains data? Just truncating the preallocation and freeing
> the delalloc and unwritten blocks seems like it would be way
> more efficient.
>

I've had the same idea before, I asked Dave and he explained that Linux
could leak data beyond EOF page for some cases, e.g. mmap() can write to
the EOF page beyond EOF without failing, and the data in that EOF page
could be non-zeroed by mmap(), so the zeroing is still needed now.

OTOH, if we free the delalloc and unwritten blocks beyond EOF blocks, he
said it could lead to some performance problems and make thinks
complicated to deal with the trimming of EOF block. Please see [1]
for details and maybe Dave could explain more.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/ZeERAob9Imwh01bG@dread.disaster.area/

Thanks,
Yi.

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 03:18:17PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
> I've had the same idea before, I asked Dave and he explained that Linux
> could leak data beyond EOF page for some cases, e.g. mmap() can write to
> the EOF page beyond EOF without failing, and the data in that EOF page
> could be non-zeroed by mmap(), so the zeroing is still needed now.
>
> OTOH, if we free the delalloc and unwritten blocks beyond EOF blocks, he
> said it could lead to some performance problems and make thinks
> complicated to deal with the trimming of EOF block. Please see [1]
> for details and maybe Dave could explain more.

Oh well. Given that we're full in on the speculative allocations
we might as well deal with it.

On 2024/4/27 14:59, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 03:18:17PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
>> I've had the same idea before, I asked Dave and he explained that Linux
>> could leak data beyond EOF page for some cases, e.g. mmap() can write to
>> the EOF page beyond EOF without failing, and the data in that EOF page
>> could be non-zeroed by mmap(), so the zeroing is still needed now.
>>
>> OTOH, if we free the delalloc and unwritten blocks beyond EOF blocks, he
>> said it could lead to some performance problems and make thinks
>> complicated to deal with the trimming of EOF block. Please see [1]
>> for details and maybe Dave could explain more.
>
> Oh well. Given that we're full in on the speculative allocations
> we might as well deal with it.
>

Let me confirm, so you also think the preallocations in the COW fork that
overlaps the unreflinked range is useless, we should avoid allocating
this range, is that right? If so, I suppose we can do this improvement in
another patch(set), this one works fine now.

Thanks,
Yi.

On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 11:26:00AM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
> >
> > Oh well. Given that we're full in on the speculative allocations
> > we might as well deal with it.
> >
>
> Let me confirm, so you also think the preallocations in the COW fork that
> overlaps the unreflinked range is useless, we should avoid allocating
> this range, is that right? If so, I suppose we can do this improvement in
> another patch(set), this one works fine now.

Well, not stop allocating it, but not actually convert it to a real
allocation when we're just truncating it and replacing the blocks with
reflinked blocks.

But yes, this is a bigger project.

For now for this patch to go ahead:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

On 2024/4/29 12:41, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 11:26:00AM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh well. Given that we're full in on the speculative allocations
>>> we might as well deal with it.
>>>
>>
>> Let me confirm, so you also think the preallocations in the COW fork that
>> overlaps the unreflinked range is useless, we should avoid allocating
>> this range, is that right? If so, I suppose we can do this improvement in
>> another patch(set), this one works fine now.
>
> Well, not stop allocating it, but not actually convert it to a real
> allocation when we're just truncating it and replacing the blocks with
> reflinked blocks.

OK, it looks fine, too.

Thanks,
Yi.

>
> But yes, this is a bigger project.>
> For now for this patch to go ahead:
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>