Re: [PATCH] dm-integrity: align the outgoing bio in integrity_recheck

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

 




On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, Ming Lei wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 05:48:45PM +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > It may be possible to set up dm-integrity with smaller sector size than
> > the logical sector size of the underlying device. In this situation,
> > dm-integrity guarantees that the outgoing bios have the same alignment as
> > incoming bios (so, if you create a filesystem with 4k block size,
> > dm-integrity would send 4k-aligned bios to the underlying device).
> > 
> > This guarantee was broken when integrity_recheck was implemented.
> > integrity_recheck sends bio that is aligned to ic->sectors_per_block. So
> > if we set up integrity with 512-byte sector size on a device with logical
> > block size 4k, we would be sending unaligned bio. This triggered a bug in
> > one of our internal tests.
> > 
> > This commit fixes it - it determines what's the actual alignment of the
> > incoming bio and then makes sure that the outgoing bio in
> > integrity_recheck has the same alignment.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Fixes: c88f5e553fe3 ("dm-integrity: recheck the integrity tag after a failure")
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > ---
> >  drivers/md/dm-integrity.c |   12 ++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/md/dm-integrity.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/md/dm-integrity.c	2024-03-21 14:25:45.000000000 +0100
> > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/md/dm-integrity.c	2024-03-21 17:47:39.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -1699,7 +1699,6 @@ static noinline void integrity_recheck(s
> >  	struct bio_vec bv;
> >  	sector_t sector, logical_sector, area, offset;
> >  	struct page *page;
> > -	void *buffer;
> >  
> >  	get_area_and_offset(ic, dio->range.logical_sector, &area, &offset);
> >  	dio->metadata_block = get_metadata_sector_and_offset(ic, area, offset,
> > @@ -1708,13 +1707,14 @@ static noinline void integrity_recheck(s
> >  	logical_sector = dio->range.logical_sector;
> >  
> >  	page = mempool_alloc(&ic->recheck_pool, GFP_NOIO);
> > -	buffer = page_to_virt(page);
> >  
> >  	__bio_for_each_segment(bv, bio, iter, dio->bio_details.bi_iter) {
> >  		unsigned pos = 0;
> >  
> >  		do {
> > +			sector_t alignment;
> >  			char *mem;
> > +			char *buffer = page_to_virt(page);
> >  			int r;
> >  			struct dm_io_request io_req;
> >  			struct dm_io_region io_loc;
> > @@ -1727,6 +1727,14 @@ static noinline void integrity_recheck(s
> >  			io_loc.sector = sector;
> >  			io_loc.count = ic->sectors_per_block;
> >  
> > +			/* Align the bio to logical block size */
> > +			alignment = dio->range.logical_sector | bio_sectors(bio) | (PAGE_SIZE >> SECTOR_SHIFT);
> > +			alignment &= -alignment;
> 
> The above is less readable, :-(

It isolates the lowest bit from dio->range.logical_sector, 
bio_sectors(bio) and (PAGE_SIZE >> SECTOR_SHIFT).

See for example this https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/blsi

> > +			io_loc.sector = round_down(io_loc.sector, alignment);
> > +			io_loc.count += sector - io_loc.sector;
> > +			buffer += (sector - io_loc.sector) << SECTOR_SHIFT;
> > +			io_loc.count = round_up(io_loc.count, alignment);
> 
> I feel the above code isn't very reliable, what we need actually is to
> make sure that io's sector & size is aligned with dm's
> bdev_logical_block_size(bdev).

I thought about using bdev_logical_block_size. But it may be wrong if the 
device stack is reconfigured. So, I concluded that taking the alignment 
from the bio would be better.

> Yeah, so far the max logical block size is 4k, but it may be increased
> in future and you can see the recent lsfmm proposal, so can we force it to be
> aligned with bdev_logical_block_size(bdev) here?
> 
> Also can the above change work efficiently in case of 64K PAGE_SIZE?

It doesn't work efficiently at all - this piece of code is only run in a 
pathological case where the user writes into a buffer while reading it (or 
when he reads multiple blocks into the same buffer), so I optimized it for 
size, not for performance.

But yes, it works with 64K PAGE_SIZE.

> Thanks,
> Ming

Mikulas





[Index of Archives]     [DM Crypt]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux