On 1.09.21 г. 20:01, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> From: Boris Burkov <boris@xxxxxx>
>
<snip>
> @@ -79,6 +83,12 @@ struct btrfs_receive
> struct subvol_uuid_search sus;
>
> int honor_end_cmd;
> +
> + int force_decompress;
Make it bool
> +
> + /* Reuse stream objects for encoded_write decompression fallback */
> + ZSTD_DStream *zstd_dstream;
> + z_stream *zlib_stream;
> };
>
> static int finish_subvol(struct btrfs_receive *rctx)
> @@ -989,9 +999,222 @@ static int process_update_extent(const char *path, u64 offset, u64 len,
> return 0;
> }
>
<snip>
> +
> +static int decompress_lzo(const char *encoded_data, u64 encoded_len,
> + char *unencoded_data, u64 unencoded_len,
> + unsigned int page_size)
> +{
> + uint32_t total_len;
> + size_t in_pos, out_pos;
> +
> + if (encoded_len < 4) {
> + error("lzo header is truncated");
> + return -EIO;
> + }
> + memcpy(&total_len, encoded_data, 4);
> + total_len = le32toh(total_len);
> + if (total_len > encoded_len) {
> + error("lzo header is invalid");
> + return -EIO;
> + }
> +
> + in_pos = 4;
> + out_pos = 0;
> + while (in_pos < total_len && out_pos < unencoded_len) {
> + size_t page_remaining;
> + uint32_t src_len;
> + lzo_uint dst_len;
> + int ret;
> +
> + page_remaining = -in_pos % page_size;
Why the -in_pos?
> + if (page_remaining < 4) {
> + if (total_len - in_pos <= page_remaining)
> + break;
> + in_pos += page_remaining;
> + }
> +
> + if (total_len - in_pos < 4) {
> + error("lzo segment header is truncated");
> + return -EIO;
> + }
> +
> + memcpy(&src_len, encoded_data + in_pos, 4);
> + src_len = le32toh(src_len);
> + in_pos += 4;
> + if (src_len > total_len - in_pos) {
> + error("lzo segment header is invalid");
> + return -EIO;
> + }
> +
> + dst_len = page_size;
> + ret = lzo1x_decompress_safe((void *)(encoded_data + in_pos),
> + src_len,
> + (void *)(unencoded_data + out_pos),
> + &dst_len, NULL);
> + if (ret != LZO_E_OK) {
> + error("lzo1x_decompress_safe failed: %d", ret);
> + return -EIO;
> + }
> +
> + in_pos += src_len;
> + out_pos += dst_len;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int decompress_and_write(struct btrfs_receive *rctx,
> + const char *encoded_data, u64 offset,
> + u64 encoded_len, u64 unencoded_file_len,
> + u64 unencoded_len, u64 unencoded_offset,
> + u32 compression)
> +{
> + int ret = 0;
> + size_t pos;
> + ssize_t w;
> + char *unencoded_data;
> + int page_shift;
> +
> + unencoded_data = calloc(unencoded_len, 1);
> + if (!unencoded_data) {
> + error("allocating space for unencoded data failed: %m");
> + return -errno;
> + }
> +
> + switch (compression) {
> + case BTRFS_ENCODED_IO_COMPRESSION_ZLIB:
> + ret = decompress_zlib(rctx, encoded_data, encoded_len,
> + unencoded_data, unencoded_len);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out;
> + break;
> + case BTRFS_ENCODED_IO_COMPRESSION_ZSTD:
> + ret = decompress_zstd(rctx, encoded_data, encoded_len,
> + unencoded_data, unencoded_len);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out;
> + break;
> + case BTRFS_ENCODED_IO_COMPRESSION_LZO_4K:
> + case BTRFS_ENCODED_IO_COMPRESSION_LZO_8K:
> + case BTRFS_ENCODED_IO_COMPRESSION_LZO_16K:
> + case BTRFS_ENCODED_IO_COMPRESSION_LZO_32K:
> + case BTRFS_ENCODED_IO_COMPRESSION_LZO_64K:
> + page_shift = compression - BTRFS_ENCODED_IO_COMPRESSION_LZO_4K + 12;
Doesn't this calculation assume page size is 4k, what about arches with
larger page size (ppc/aarch64), shouldn't that '12' be adjusted?
> + ret = decompress_lzo(encoded_data, encoded_len, unencoded_data,
> + unencoded_len, 1U << page_shift);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out;
> + break;
> + default:
> + error("unknown compression: %d", compression);
> + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + pos = unencoded_offset;
> + while (pos < unencoded_file_len) {
> + w = pwrite(rctx->write_fd, unencoded_data + pos,
> + unencoded_file_len - pos, offset);
> + if (w < 0) {
> + ret = -errno;
> + error("writing unencoded data failed: %m");
> + goto out;
> + }
> + pos += w;
> + offset += w;
> + }
> +out:
> + free(unencoded_data);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> static int process_encoded_write(const char *path, const void *data, u64 offset,
> - u64 len, u64 unencoded_file_len, u64 unencoded_len,
> - u64 unencoded_offset, u32 compression, u32 encryption, void *user)
> + u64 len, u64 unencoded_file_len,
> + u64 unencoded_len, u64 unencoded_offset,
> + u32 compression, u32 encryption, void *user)
That's irrelevant change for this patch, it should be squashed in the
previous patch which introduces process_encoded_write.
> {
> int ret;
> struct btrfs_receive *rctx = user;
> @@ -1007,6 +1230,7 @@ static int process_encoded_write(const char *path, const void *data, u64 offset,
> .compression = compression,
> .encryption = encryption,
> };
> + bool encoded_write = !rctx->force_decompress;
No point in the local variable simply use !rctx->force_decompress in the
condition below.
>
> if (encryption) {
> error("encoded_write: encryption not supported");
> @@ -1023,13 +1247,21 @@ static int process_encoded_write(const char *path, const void *data, u64 offset,
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
>
> - ret = ioctl(rctx->write_fd, BTRFS_IOC_ENCODED_WRITE, &encoded);
> - if (ret < 0) {
> - ret = -errno;
> - error("encoded_write: writing to %s failed: %m", path);
> - return ret;
> + if (encoded_write) {
> + ret = ioctl(rctx->write_fd, BTRFS_IOC_ENCODED_WRITE, &encoded);
> + if (ret >= 0)
> + return 0;
> + /* Fall back for these errors, fail hard for anything else. */
> + if (errno != ENOSPC && errno != ENOTTY && errno != EINVAL) {
> + ret = -errno;
> + error("encoded_write: writing to %s failed: %m", path);
> + return ret;
> + }
> }
> - return 0;
> +
> + return decompress_and_write(rctx, data, offset, len, unencoded_file_len,
> + unencoded_len, unencoded_offset,
> + compression);
> }
>
> static struct btrfs_send_ops send_ops = {
<snip>
