Re: [PATCH 0/2] ceph: misc fixes for the fscrypt truncate size handling

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2021-11-09 at 08:21 +0800, Xiubo Li wrote:
> On 11/9/21 2:36 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-11-08 at 21:50 +0800, xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Hi Jeff,
> > > 
> > > The #1 could be squashed to the previous "ceph: add truncate size handling support for fscrypt" commit.
> > > The #2 could be squashed to the previous "ceph: fscrypt_file field handling in MClientRequest messages" commit.
> > > 
> > > Thanks.
> > > 
> > > Xiubo Li (2):
> > >    ceph: fix possible crash and data corrupt bugs
> > >    ceph: there is no need to round up the sizes when new size is 0
> > > 
> > >   fs/ceph/inode.c | 8 +++++---
> > >   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > I'm running xfstests today with the current state of wip-fscrypt-size
> > (including the two patches above) with test_dummy_encryption enabled.
> > generic/030 failed. The expected output of this part of the test was:
> > 
> > wrote 5136912/5136912 bytes at offset 0
> > XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec)
> > ==== Pre-Remount ===
> > 00000000  58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58  58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58
> > > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX|
> > *
> > 004e6210  59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59  59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59
> > > YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY|
> > *
> > 004e6d00  59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > > YYYYYYYY........|
> > 004e6d10  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > > ................|
> > *
> > 004e7000
> > ==== Post-Remount ==
> > 00000000  58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58  58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58
> > > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX|
> > *
> > 004e6210  59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59  59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59
> > > YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY|
> > *
> > 004e6d00  59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > > YYYYYYYY........|
> > 004e6d10  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > > ................|
> > *
> > 004e7000
> > 
> > ...but I got this instead:
> > 
> > wrote 5136912/5136912 bytes at offset 0
> > XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec)
> > ==== Pre-Remount ===
> > 00000000  58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58  58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58
> > > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX|
> > *
> > 00400000  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > > ................|
> > *
> > 004e7000
> > ==== Post-Remount ==
> > 00000000  58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58  58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58
> > > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX|
> > *
> > 00400000  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > > ................|
> > *
> > 004e7000
> > 
> > 
> > ...I suspect this is related to the 075 failures, but I don't see it on
> > every attempt, which makes me think "race condition". I'll keep hunting.
> 
> Yeah, seems the same issue.
> 

I wonder if we're hitting the same problem that this patch was intended
to fix:

    057ba5b24532 ceph: Fix race between hole punch and page fault

It seems like the problem is very similar. It may be worth testing a
patch that takes the filemap_invalidate_lock across the on the wire
truncate and the vmtruncate.
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>



[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Ceph Dev]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux