On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:00:45PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> > + pr_err("BTRFS: swapfile has holes");
> > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > + if (em->block_start == EXTENT_MAP_INLINE) {
> > + pr_err("BTRFS: swapfile is inline");
>
> While the test is valid, this would mean that the file is smaller than
> the inline limit, which is now one page. I think the generic swap code
> would refuse such a small file anyway.
>
Sure. This test doesn't really cost us anything, so I think I'd feel a little
better just leaving it in. I'll add a comment for the next close reader.
Besides that and Filipe's response, I'll address everything you mentioned here
and in your other email in the next version, thanks.
> > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > + if (test_bit(EXTENT_FLAG_COMPRESSED, &em->flags)) {
> > + pr_err("BTRFS: swapfile is compresed");
> > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
>
> I think the preallocated extents should be refused as well. This means
> the filesystem has enough space to hold the data but it would still have
> to go through the allocation and could in turn stress the memory
> management code that triggered the swapping activity in the first place.
>
> Though it's probably still possible to reach such corner case even with
> fully allocated nodatacow file, this should be reviewed anyway.
>
I'll definitely take a closer look at this. In particular,
btrfs_get_blocks_direct and btrfs_get_extent do allocations in some cases which
I'll look into.
--
Omar
--
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
