On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 05:53:46AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 11:23 +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 4:18 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > This series creates a new FIEXCHANGE_RANGE system call to exchange
> > > ranges of bytes between two files atomically. This new functionality
> > > enables data storage programs to stage and commit file updates such that
> > > reader programs will see either the old contents or the new contents in
> > > their entirety, with no chance of torn writes. A successful call
> > > completion guarantees that the new contents will be seen even if the
> > > system fails.
> > >
> > > The ability to exchange file fork mappings between files in this manner
> > > is critical to supporting online filesystem repair, which is built upon
> > > the strategy of constructing a clean copy of a damaged structure and
> > > committing the new structure into the metadata file atomically.
> > >
> > > User programs will be able to update files atomically by opening an
> > > O_TMPFILE, reflinking the source file to it, making whatever updates
> > > they want to make, and exchange the relevant ranges of the temp file
> > > with the original file. If the updates are aligned with the file block
> > > size, a new (since v2) flag provides for exchanging only the written
> > > areas. Callers can arrange for the update to be rejected if the
> > > original file has been changed.
> > >
> > > The intent behind this new userspace functionality is to enable atomic
> > > rewrites of arbitrary parts of individual files. For years, application
> > > programmers wanting to ensure the atomicity of a file update had to
> > > write the changes to a new file in the same directory, fsync the new
> > > file, rename the new file on top of the old filename, and then fsync the
> > > directory. People get it wrong all the time, and $fs hacks abound.
> > > Here are the proposed manual pages:
> > >
>
> This is a cool idea! I've had some handwavy ideas about making a gated
> write() syscall (i.e. only write if the change cookie hasn't changed),
> but something like this may be a simpler lift initially.
How /does/ userspace get at the change cookie nowadays?
> > > IOCTL-XFS-EXCHANGE-RANGE(2System Calls ManuIOCTL-XFS-EXCHANGE-RANGE(2)
> > >
> > > NAME
> > > ioctl_xfs_exchange_range - exchange the contents of parts of
> > > two files
> > >
> > > SYNOPSIS
> > > #include <sys/ioctl.h>
> > > #include <xfs/xfs_fs_staging.h>
> > >
> > > int ioctl(int file2_fd, XFS_IOC_EXCHANGE_RANGE, struct
> > > xfs_exch_range *arg);
> > >
> > > DESCRIPTION
> > > Given a range of bytes in a first file file1_fd and a second
> > > range of bytes in a second file file2_fd, this ioctl(2) ex‐
> > > changes the contents of the two ranges.
> > >
> > > Exchanges are atomic with regards to concurrent file opera‐
> > > tions, so no userspace-level locks need to be taken to obtain
> > > consistent results. Implementations must guarantee that read‐
> > > ers see either the old contents or the new contents in their
> > > entirety, even if the system fails.
> > >
> > > The system call parameters are conveyed in structures of the
> > > following form:
> > >
> > > struct xfs_exch_range {
> > > __s64 file1_fd;
> > > __s64 file1_offset;
> > > __s64 file2_offset;
> > > __s64 length;
> > > __u64 flags;
> > >
> > > __u64 pad;
> > > };
> > >
> > > The field pad must be zero.
> > >
> > > The fields file1_fd, file1_offset, and length define the first
> > > range of bytes to be exchanged.
> > >
> > > The fields file2_fd, file2_offset, and length define the second
> > > range of bytes to be exchanged.
> > >
> > > Both files must be from the same filesystem mount. If the two
> > > file descriptors represent the same file, the byte ranges must
> > > not overlap. Most disk-based filesystems require that the
> > > starts of both ranges must be aligned to the file block size.
> > > If this is the case, the ends of the ranges must also be so
> > > aligned unless the XFS_EXCHRANGE_TO_EOF flag is set.
> > >
> > > The field flags control the behavior of the exchange operation.
> > >
> > > XFS_EXCHRANGE_TO_EOF
> > > Ignore the length parameter. All bytes in file1_fd
> > > from file1_offset to EOF are moved to file2_fd, and
> > > file2's size is set to (file2_offset+(file1_length-
> > > file1_offset)). Meanwhile, all bytes in file2 from
> > > file2_offset to EOF are moved to file1 and file1's
> > > size is set to (file1_offset+(file2_length-
> > > file2_offset)).
> > >
> > > XFS_EXCHRANGE_DSYNC
> > > Ensure that all modified in-core data in both file
> > > ranges and all metadata updates pertaining to the
> > > exchange operation are flushed to persistent storage
> > > before the call returns. Opening either file de‐
> > > scriptor with O_SYNC or O_DSYNC will have the same
> > > effect.
> > >
> > > XFS_EXCHRANGE_FILE1_WRITTEN
> > > Only exchange sub-ranges of file1_fd that are known
> > > to contain data written by application software.
> > > Each sub-range may be expanded (both upwards and
> > > downwards) to align with the file allocation unit.
> > > For files on the data device, this is one filesystem
> > > block. For files on the realtime device, this is
> > > the realtime extent size. This facility can be used
> > > to implement fast atomic scatter-gather writes of
> > > any complexity for software-defined storage targets
> > > if all writes are aligned to the file allocation
> > > unit.
> > >
> > > XFS_EXCHRANGE_DRY_RUN
> > > Check the parameters and the feasibility of the op‐
> > > eration, but do not change anything.
> > >
> > > RETURN VALUE
> > > On error, -1 is returned, and errno is set to indicate the er‐
> > > ror.
> > >
> > > ERRORS
> > > Error codes can be one of, but are not limited to, the follow‐
> > > ing:
> > >
> > > EBADF file1_fd is not open for reading and writing or is open
> > > for append-only writes; or file2_fd is not open for
> > > reading and writing or is open for append-only writes.
> > >
> > > EINVAL The parameters are not correct for these files. This
> > > error can also appear if either file descriptor repre‐
> > > sents a device, FIFO, or socket. Disk filesystems gen‐
> > > erally require the offset and length arguments to be
> > > aligned to the fundamental block sizes of both files.
> > >
> > > EIO An I/O error occurred.
> > >
> > > EISDIR One of the files is a directory.
> > >
> > > ENOMEM The kernel was unable to allocate sufficient memory to
> > > perform the operation.
> > >
> > > ENOSPC There is not enough free space in the filesystem ex‐
> > > change the contents safely.
> > >
> > > EOPNOTSUPP
> > > The filesystem does not support exchanging bytes between
> > > the two files.
> > >
> > > EPERM file1_fd or file2_fd are immutable.
> > >
> > > ETXTBSY
> > > One of the files is a swap file.
> > >
> > > EUCLEAN
> > > The filesystem is corrupt.
> > >
> > > EXDEV file1_fd and file2_fd are not on the same mounted
> > > filesystem.
> > >
> > > CONFORMING TO
> > > This API is XFS-specific.
> > >
> > > USE CASES
> > > Several use cases are imagined for this system call. In all
> > > cases, application software must coordinate updates to the file
> > > because the exchange is performed unconditionally.
> > >
> > > The first is a data storage program that wants to commit non-
> > > contiguous updates to a file atomically and coordinates write
> > > access to that file. This can be done by creating a temporary
> > > file, calling FICLONE(2) to share the contents, and staging the
> > > updates into the temporary file. The FULL_FILES flag is recom‐
> > > mended for this purpose. The temporary file can be deleted or
> > > punched out afterwards.
> > >
> > > An example program might look like this:
> > >
> > > int fd = open("/some/file", O_RDWR);
> > > int temp_fd = open("/some", O_TMPFILE | O_RDWR);
> > >
> > > ioctl(temp_fd, FICLONE, fd);
> > >
> > > /* append 1MB of records */
> > > lseek(temp_fd, 0, SEEK_END);
> > > write(temp_fd, data1, 1000000);
> > >
> > > /* update record index */
> > > pwrite(temp_fd, data1, 600, 98765);
> > > pwrite(temp_fd, data2, 320, 54321);
> > > pwrite(temp_fd, data2, 15, 0);
> > >
> > > /* commit the entire update */
> > > struct xfs_exch_range args = {
> > > .file1_fd = temp_fd,
> > > .flags = XFS_EXCHRANGE_TO_EOF,
> > > };
> > >
> > > ioctl(fd, XFS_IOC_EXCHANGE_RANGE, &args);
> > >
> > > The second is a software-defined storage host (e.g. a disk
> > > jukebox) which implements an atomic scatter-gather write com‐
> > > mand. Provided the exported disk's logical block size matches
> > > the file's allocation unit size, this can be done by creating a
> > > temporary file and writing the data at the appropriate offsets.
> > > It is recommended that the temporary file be truncated to the
> > > size of the regular file before any writes are staged to the
> > > temporary file to avoid issues with zeroing during EOF exten‐
> > > sion. Use this call with the FILE1_WRITTEN flag to exchange
> > > only the file allocation units involved in the emulated de‐
> > > vice's write command. The temporary file should be truncated
> > > or punched out completely before being reused to stage another
> > > write.
> > >
> > > An example program might look like this:
> > >
> > > int fd = open("/some/file", O_RDWR);
> > > int temp_fd = open("/some", O_TMPFILE | O_RDWR);
> > > struct stat sb;
> > > int blksz;
> > >
> > > fstat(fd, &sb);
> > > blksz = sb.st_blksize;
> > >
> > > /* land scatter gather writes between 100fsb and 500fsb */
> > > pwrite(temp_fd, data1, blksz * 2, blksz * 100);
> > > pwrite(temp_fd, data2, blksz * 20, blksz * 480);
> > > pwrite(temp_fd, data3, blksz * 7, blksz * 257);
> > >
> > > /* commit the entire update */
> > > struct xfs_exch_range args = {
> > > .file1_fd = temp_fd,
> > > .file1_offset = blksz * 100,
> > > .file2_offset = blksz * 100,
> > > .length = blksz * 400,
> > > .flags = XFS_EXCHRANGE_FILE1_WRITTEN |
> > > XFS_EXCHRANGE_FILE1_DSYNC,
> > > };
> > >
> > > ioctl(fd, XFS_IOC_EXCHANGE_RANGE, &args);
> > >
> > > NOTES
> > > Some filesystems may limit the amount of data or the number of
> > > extents that can be exchanged in a single call.
> > >
> > > SEE ALSO
> > > ioctl(2)
> > >
> > > XFS 2024-02-10 IOCTL-XFS-EXCHANGE-RANGE(2)
> > > IOCTL-XFS-COMMIT-RANGE(2) System Calls ManualIOCTL-XFS-COMMIT-RANGE(2)
> > >
> > > NAME
> > > ioctl_xfs_commit_range - conditionally exchange the contents of
> > > parts of two files
> > >
> > > SYNOPSIS
> > > #include <sys/ioctl.h>
> > > #include <xfs/xfs_fs_staging.h>
> > >
> > > int ioctl(int file2_fd, XFS_IOC_COMMIT_RANGE, struct xfs_com‐
> > > mit_range *arg);
> > >
> > > DESCRIPTION
> > > Given a range of bytes in a first file file1_fd and a second
> > > range of bytes in a second file file2_fd, this ioctl(2) ex‐
> > > changes the contents of the two ranges if file2_fd passes cer‐
> > > tain freshness criteria.
> > >
> > > After locking both files but before exchanging the contents,
> > > the supplied file2_ino field must match file2_fd's inode num‐
> > > ber, and the supplied file2_mtime, file2_mtime_nsec,
> > > file2_ctime, and file2_ctime_nsec fields must match the modifi‐
> > > cation time and change time of file2. If they do not match,
> > > EBUSY will be returned.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe a stupid question, but under which circumstances would mtime
> > change and ctime not change? Why are both needed?
> >
>
> ctime should always change if the mtime does. An mtime update means that
> the metadata was updated, so you also need to update the ctime.
Exactly. :)
> > And for a new API, wouldn't it be better to use change_cookie (a.k.a i_version)?
> > Even if this API is designed to be hoisted out of XFS at some future time,
> > Is there a real need to support it on filesystems that do not support
> > i_version(?)
> >
> > Not to mention the fact that POSIX does not explicitly define how ctime should
> > behave with changes to fiemap (uninitialized extent and all), so who knows
> > how other filesystems may update ctime in those cases.
> >
> > I realize that STATX_CHANGE_COOKIE is currently kernel internal, but
> > it seems that XFS_IOC_EXCHANGE_RANGE is a case where userspace
> > really explicitly requests a bump of i_version on the next change.
> >
>
>
> I agree. Using an opaque change cookie would be a lot nicer from an API
> standpoint, and shouldn't be subject to timestamp granularity issues.
TLDR: No.
> That said, XFS's change cookie is currently broken. Dave C. said he had
> some patches in progress to fix that however.
Dave says that about a lot of things. I'm not willing to delay the
online fsck project _even further_ for a bunch of vaporware that's not
even out on linux-xfs for review.
The difference in opinion between xfs and the rest of the kernel about
i_version is 50% of why I didn't include it here. The other 50% is the
part where userspace can't access it, because I do not want to saddle my
mostly internal project with YET ANOTHER ASK FROM RH PEOPLE FOR CORE
CHANGES.
--D
> --
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
