Re: [PATCH V3 08/10] xfs: Check for extent overflow when moving extent from cow to data fork

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Monday 31 August 2020 9:59:08 PM IST Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 11:13:47AM +0530, Chandan Babu R wrote:
> > Moving an extent to data fork can cause a sub-interval of an existing
> > extent to be unmapped. This will increase extent count by 1. Mapping in
> > the new extent can increase the extent count by 1 again i.e.
> >  | Old extent | New extent | Old extent |
> > Hence number of extents increases by 2.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Chandan Babu R <chandanrlinux@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.h | 9 ++++++++-
> >  fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c           | 5 +++++
> >  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.h b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.h
> > index d0e49b015b62..850d53162545 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.h
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.h
> > @@ -78,7 +78,14 @@ struct xfs_ifork {
> >   * split into two extents causing extent count to increase by 1.
> >   */
> >  #define XFS_IEXT_INSERT_HOLE_CNT	(1)
> > -
> > +/*
> > + * Moving an extent to data fork can cause a sub-interval of an existing extent
> > + * to be unmapped. This will increase extent count by 1. Mapping in the new
> > + * extent can increase the extent count by 1 again i.e.
> > + * | Old extent | New extent | Old extent |
> > + * Hence number of extents increases by 2.
> > + */
> > +#define XFS_IEXT_REFLINK_END_COW_CNT	(2)
> >  
> >  /*
> >   * Fork handling.
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c
> > index aac83f9d6107..c1d2a741e1af 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c
> > @@ -628,6 +628,11 @@ xfs_reflink_end_cow_extent(
> >  	xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> >  	xfs_trans_ijoin(tp, ip, 0);
> >  
> > +	error = xfs_iext_count_may_overflow(ip, XFS_DATA_FORK,
> > +			XFS_IEXT_REFLINK_END_COW_CNT);
> > +	if (error)
> > +		goto out_cancel;
> 
> What happens if we fail here?  I think for buffered writes this means
> that writeback fails and we store an EIO in the address space for
> eventual return via fsync()?   And for a direct write this means that
> EIO gets sent back to the caller, right?
>

Yes, you are right about that.

> Assuming I understood that correctly, I think this is a reasonable
> enough place to check for overflows, and hence
> 
> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> It would be nicer to check this kind of thing at write() time to put all
> the EFBIG errors up front, but I don't think you can do that without
> tracking extent count "reservations" incore.
> 
> --D
> 
> > +
> >  	/*
> >  	 * In case of racing, overlapping AIO writes no COW extents might be
> >  	 * left by the time I/O completes for the loser of the race.  In that
> 

-- 
chandan






[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux