On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:00:06 +0000 "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 12:20 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:02:00 +0000 > > "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 11:53 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:28:47 +0000 > > > > "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 11:05 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:42:23 +0000 > > > > > > "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 09:25 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > > > > > Jian reported that the following sequence would leave "testfile" with > > > > > > > > corrupt data: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # mount localhost:/export /mnt/nfs/ -o vers=3 > > > > > > > > # echo abc > /mnt/nfs/testfile; echo def >> /export/testfile; echo ghi >> /mnt/nfs/testfile > > > > > > > > # cat -v /export/testfile > > > > > > > > abc > > > > > > > > ^@^@^@^@ghi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While there's no locking involved here, the operations are serialized, > > > > > > > > so CTO should prevent corruption. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first write to the file is fine and writes 4 bytes. The file is then > > > > > > > > extended on the server. When it's reopened a GETATTR is issued and the > > > > > > > > size change is noticed. This causes NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA to be set on > > > > > > > > the file. Because the file is opened for write only, > > > > > > > > nfs_want_read_modify_write() returns 0 to nfs_write_begin(). > > > > > > > > nfs_updatepage then calls nfs_write_pageuptodate() to see if it should > > > > > > > > extend the nfs_page to cover the whole page. NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA is > > > > > > > > still set on the file at that point, but that flag is ignored and > > > > > > > > nfs_pageuptodate erroneously extends the write to cover the whole page, > > > > > > > > with the write done on the server side filled in with zeroes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch just has that function check for NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA in > > > > > > > > addition to NFS_INO_REVAL_PAGECACHE. This fixes the bug, but looking > > > > > > > > over the code, I wonder if we might have a similar bug in > > > > > > > > nfs_revalidate_size(). The difference between those two flags is very > > > > > > > > subtle, so it seems like we ought to be checking for > > > > > > > > NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA in most of the places that we look for > > > > > > > > NFS_INO_REVAL_PAGECACHE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe this is regression introduced by commit 8d197a568. The code > > > > > > > > did check for NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA prior to that patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original bug report is here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885743 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jeff, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point of NFS_INO_REVAL_PAGECACHE is to be able to distinguish > > > > > > > between situations where the file size or change attribute is in doubt > > > > > > > (and so the page cache validity is in doubt), and situations where other > > > > > > > attributes are in doubt (such as ACCESS caches, file owner, nlinks,...). > > > > > > > This is why we're only checking for NFS_INO_REVAL_PAGECACHE and not > > > > > > > NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA in the functions you mention above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, now I'm really confused... I thought that: > > > > > > > > > > > > NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA == pagecache data was known to be wrong > > > > > > NFS_INO_REVAL_PAGECACHE == pagecache data is questionable > > > > > > > > > > There is no "known to be wrong" state. Both mean "needs revalidation". > > > > > > > > > > > ...but if I understand what you're saying above, the "data" that > > > > > > NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA refers to is in peripheral caches, like the ACCESS > > > > > > cache? I guess then I don't quite understand what NFS_INO_INVALID_ATTR > > > > > > and NFS_INO_INVALID_ACCESS are for. Aren't they supposed to indicate that > > > > > > the attrs and access caches are invalid? > > > > > > > > > > NFS_INO_INVALID_ATTR basically means that some aspect of the file > > > > > metadata needs revalidation, and so a call to nfs_revalidate_inode() > > > > > will always result in a GETATTR rpc call. > > > > > > > > > > NFS_INO_INVALID_ACCESS means that the file access cache needs > > > > > revalidation. A call to nfs_do_access() will always result in an ACCESS > > > > > rpc call. > > > > > > > > > > NFS_INO_REVAL_PAGECACHE means that the file page cache data needs > > > > > revalidation. A call to nfs_revalidate_file_size() or > > > > > nfs_revalidate_mapping() will result in a revalidation of the page > > > > > cache. In practice that means a GETATTR rpc call, but that may change if > > > > > future versions of NFS allow for different methods of revalidating the > > > > > page cache; consider, for instance, the byte-range delegation RFC that > > > > > Bruce and I published a few years back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, thanks. Another question though -- what does NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA > > > > mean, and what distinguishes it from NFS_INO_REVAL_PAGECACHE? > > > > > > See above. They affect _different_ revalidation situations (represented > > > by different revalidation functions). > > > > > > > > > > So the fix here should be to set NFS_INO_REVAL_PAGECACHE when the change > > > > > > > attribute and/or size change is noticed. The only function I can see > > > > > > > that appears to get this wrong is nfs_wcc_update_inode(). Does fixing > > > > > > > that lay the bug to rest? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that doesn't fix it. There's another place that misses setting that > > > > > > flag too in nfs_update_inode() where the size changes. I added it there > > > > > > too and that also didn't fix it. Here's why (I think): > > > > > > > > > > > > When the size change is noticed via the CTO GETATTR call, then my > > > > > > patched kernel now sets NFS_INO_REVAL_PAGECACHE in nfs_update_inode. > > > > > > Now cache_validity is set to 0x2a. The kernel then makes an ACCESS call > > > > > > that also ultimately ends up in nfs_update_inode. > > > > > > > > > > > > nfs_update_inode saves off the cache_validity flags and clears all of > > > > > > them except for NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA. As best I can tell, the > > > > > > saved_cache_validity is then ending up discarded and on exit the > > > > > > cache_validity is ending up set to just NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA. > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems like we ought to be restoring the save_cache_validity flags > > > > > > before exiting that function, but I confess that I don't quite grasp > > > > > > the logic in nfs_update_inode. Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > If the ACCESS call isn't revalidating the file size, then it should not > > > > > be clearing NFS_INO_REVAL_PAGECACHE; it does this by restoring that bit > > > > > from the "save_cache_validity" variable and storing it in "invalid". As > > > > > far as I can tell, that code is correct in upstream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > FWIW, I'm working on a 3.7-rc8 kernel here... > > > > > > > > The ACCESS call ends up with an fattr that has NFS_ATTR_FATTR_SIZE set, > > > > it just doesn't detect any change in size due to the fact that the CTO > > > > GETATTR call has already updated it. > > > > > > > > ------------------[snip]------------------------ > > > > /* Check if our cached file size is stale */ > > > > if (fattr->valid & NFS_ATTR_FATTR_SIZE) { > > > > new_isize = nfs_size_to_loff_t(fattr->size); > > > > cur_isize = i_size_read(inode); > > > > if (new_isize != cur_isize) { > > > > /* Do we perhaps have any outstanding writes, or has > > > > * the file grown beyond our last write? */ > > > > if ((nfsi->npages == 0 && !test_bit(NFS_INO_LAYOUTCOMMIT, &nfsi->flags)) || > > > > new_isize > cur_isize) { > > > > i_size_write(inode, new_isize); > > > > invalid |= NFS_INO_INVALID_ATTR|NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA; > > > > } > > > > dprintk("NFS: isize change on server for file %s/%ld " > > > > "(%Ld to %Ld)\n", > > > > inode->i_sb->s_id, > > > > inode->i_ino, > > > > (long long)cur_isize, > > > > (long long)new_isize); > > > > } > > > > } else > > > > invalid |= save_cache_validity & (NFS_INO_INVALID_ATTR > > > > | NFS_INO_REVAL_PAGECACHE > > > > | NFS_INO_REVAL_FORCED); > > > > ------------------[snip]------------------------ > > > > > > > > So here, we only restore set the REVAL_PAGECACHE flag in invalid if the > > > > size changed, or there was no size attribute present in the response. > > > > The size hasn't changed since the GETATTR call, so REVAL_PAGECACHE is > > > > not restored. > > > > > > I don't understand. Why does it need to be restored? The > > > NFS_ATTR_FATTR_SIZE is set, so the server has sent us an updated value > > > for the size. Is it lying to us? > > > > > > > No, this is NFSv3 and IIUC, NFS_ATTR_FATTR_SIZE just means that > > fattr->size is populated with a value sent by the server. In fact, > > looking at decode_fattr3(): > > > > fattr->valid |= NFS_ATTR_FATTR_V3; > > > > ...and NFS_ATTR_FATTR_V3 contains NFS_ATTR_FATTR_SIZE. > > Right. The NFSv3 server is always supposed to send us the correct value > for the size. > > > Maybe this flag doesn't need to be restored. I really don't understand > > the current logic in nfs_update_inode at all so I'll have to defer to > > your judgement here. > > > > All I know is that when the CTO GETATTR call is done, the kernel sees > > that the size has changed. Presumably, it sets NFS_INO_REVAL_PAGECACHE > > to reflect that fact. > > It should also set NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA, which is _not_ cleared by > nfs_update_inode() > > > Then, on the following ACCESS call that gets back > > attributes, it clears that flag without invalidating the cache. > > Ah... I see the bug: > > nfs_write_pageuptodate() needs to check for NFS_INO_REVAL_PAGECACHE| > NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA... > One more question though... I don't have a reproducer for it, but it looks like nfs_revalidate_file_size() might have a similar bug. Should we also be checking for NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA there too? -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
