Re: [PATCH] f2fs: remove broken support for allocating DIO writes

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

 



On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 06:05:59PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 07/30, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 03:12:15PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > On 07/30, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 06:51:54PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Currently, non-overwrite DIO writes are fundamentally unsafe on f2fs as
> > > > > they require preallocating blocks, but f2fs doesn't support unwritten
> > > > > blocks and therefore has to preallocate the blocks as regular blocks.
> > > > > f2fs has no way to reliably roll back such preallocations, so as a
> > > 
> > > Hmm, I'm still wondering why this becomes a problem. And, do we really need
> > > to roll back the preallocated blocks?
> > > 
> > > > > result, f2fs will leak uninitialized blocks to users if a DIO write
> > > > > doesn't fully complete.  This can be easily reproduced by issuing a DIO
> > > > > write that will fail due to misalignment, e.g.:
> > > 
> > > If there's any error, truncating blocks having NEW_ADDR could address this?
> > > 
> > 
> > My understanding is that the "NEW_ADDR" block address in f2fs means that space
> > was reserved for the block, but not allocated in any particular place yet.
> > Buffered writes reserve blocks in this way, but DIO writes cannot because DIO by
> > definition has to directly write to a specific on-disk location.  Therefore DIO
> > writes require that the blocks be preallocated for real.
> 
> Sorry, checking back the DIO flow, we do allocate real block addresses if DIO
> has holes.
> 
> f2fs_preallocate_blocks
>  -> f2fs_map_blocks(F2FS_GET_BLOCK_PRE_DIO)
>   -> __allocate_data_block()
>    -> f2fs_allocate_data_block() gets a free LBA
> 
> Then, back to your concern, do we need to truncate blocks beyond i_size, if we
> meet any failure?

That isn't enough because an allocating write is not necessarily an extending
write; it may be filling holes.  Also to be power-fail safe, the preallocations
must not be committed to disk at all until the write has completed (maybe that's
already the case in f2fs, but it's not clear to me).

- Eric



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux