On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If writeback happens while fuse is in FUSE_NOWRITE condition, the request
> will be queued but not processed immediately (see fuse_flush_writepages()).
> Until FUSE_NOWRITE becomes relaxed, more writebacks can happen. They will
> be queued as "secondary" requests to that first ("primary") request.
>
> When FUSE_NOWRITE is relaxed and fuse_send_writepage() is called, it must
> crop both primary and secondary requests according to the actual i_size.
> Otherwise, if only primary is cropped, an extending write(2) may increase
> i_size soon and then secondary requests won't be cropped properly. The result
> would be stale data written to the server to a file offset where zeros must be.
>
> Changed in v2:
> - avoid NULL pointer dereference in fuse_drop_writepage().
>
> Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/fuse/file.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
> index 575e44f..89a2e76 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
> @@ -1435,6 +1435,51 @@ static void fuse_writepage_finish(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_req *req)
> wake_up(&fi->page_waitq);
> }
>
> +/* Drop list of secondary writepage requests */
> +static void fuse_drop_writepage(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_req *req)
> +{
> + struct backing_dev_info *bdi = req ?
> + req->inode->i_mapping->backing_dev_info : NULL;
> +
> + while (req) {
> + struct fuse_req *next = req->misc.write.next;
> + dec_bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_WRITEBACK);
> + dec_zone_page_state(req->pages[0], NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP);
> + fuse_writepage_free(fc, req);
> + fuse_put_request(fc, req);
> + req = next;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +/* Crop the misc.write.in.size of parent and secondary writepage requests */
> +static bool fuse_crop_writepage(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_req *req,
> + loff_t size, struct fuse_req **drop_list)
> +{
> + if (req->misc.write.in.offset >= size)
> + return true;
> +
> + while (req) {
> + struct fuse_req *next = req->misc.write.next;
> + struct fuse_write_in *inarg = &req->misc.write.in;
> + __u64 data_size = inarg->size ? :
> + req->num_pages * PAGE_CACHE_SIZE;
> +
> + if (inarg->offset + data_size <= size) {
> + inarg->size = data_size;
> + } else if (inarg->offset < size) {
> + inarg->size = size - inarg->offset;
> + } else {
> + /* Got truncated off completely */
> + req->misc.write.next = *drop_list;
> + *drop_list = req;
This corrupts the list (the req is not taken off the list before being
added to another). It could be fixed, but why not check this instead
in fuse_writepage_end() before queuing the next request?
Thanks,
Miklos
> + }
> +
> + req = next;
> + }
> +
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> /* Called under fc->lock, may release and reacquire it */
> static void fuse_send_writepage(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_req *req)
> __releases(fc->lock)
> @@ -1443,29 +1488,30 @@ __acquires(fc->lock)
> struct fuse_inode *fi = get_fuse_inode(req->inode);
> loff_t size = i_size_read(req->inode);
> struct fuse_write_in *inarg = &req->misc.write.in;
> - __u64 data_size = req->num_pages * PAGE_CACHE_SIZE;
> + struct fuse_req *drop_list = NULL;
>
> if (!fc->connected)
> goto out_free;
>
> - if (inarg->offset + data_size <= size) {
> - inarg->size = data_size;
> - } else if (inarg->offset < size) {
> - inarg->size = size - inarg->offset;
> - } else {
> - /* Got truncated off completely */
> - goto out_free;
> - }
> + if (fuse_crop_writepage(fc, req, size, &drop_list))
> + goto out_free; /* drop req and descendants */
>
> req->in.args[1].size = inarg->size;
> fi->writectr++;
> fuse_request_send_background_locked(fc, req);
> +
> + if (drop_list) {
> + spin_unlock(&fc->lock);
> + fuse_drop_writepage(fc, drop_list);
> + spin_lock(&fc->lock);
> + }
> return;
>
> out_free:
> fuse_writepage_finish(fc, req);
> spin_unlock(&fc->lock);
> fuse_writepage_free(fc, req);
> + fuse_drop_writepage(fc, req->misc.write.next);
> fuse_put_request(fc, req);
> spin_lock(&fc->lock);
> }
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
