On 16 Nov 2021, at 9:01, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
On 16 Nov 2021, at 8:57, Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Tue, 2021-11-16 at 08:49 -0500, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
The mechanism in use to allow the client to see the results of
COPY/CLONE
is to drop those pages from the pagecache. This forces the client
to
read
those pages once more from the server. However,
truncate_pagecache_range()
zeros out partial pages instead of dropping them. Let us instead
use
invalidate_inode_pages2_range() with full-page offsets to ensure the
client
properly sees the results of COPY/CLONE operations.
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v4.7+
Fixes: 2e72448b07dc ("NFS: Add COPY nfs operation")
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/nfs/nfs42proc.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs42proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs42proc.c
index a24349512ffe..bbcd4c80c5a6 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs42proc.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs42proc.c
@@ -285,7 +285,10 @@ static void nfs42_copy_dest_done(struct inode
*inode, loff_t pos, loff_t len)
loff_t newsize = pos + len;
loff_t end = newsize - 1;
- truncate_pagecache_range(inode, pos, end);
+ int error =
invalidate_inode_pages2_range(inode->i_mapping,
+ pos
>> PAGE_SHIFT, end >>
PAGE_SHIFT);
Shouldn't that be "(end + PAGE_SIZE - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT" in order to
align to the set of pages that fully contains the byte range from pos
to end?
It's embarrassing that I've messed that up, I will resend it.
I've had it sitting around a bit too long -- on a second look no, it
should
be right because invalidate_inode_pages2_range()'s index arguments are
inclusive.
Ben
