Date:	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:38:45 +0530
From:	"Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix uniniatilized extend splitting error.

On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:31:03PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008  17:31 +0300, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > While playing with new fancy fallocate interface on ext4 i've triggered
> > bug which corrupted my grub :).
>
> I notice I'm CC'd on this, but in fact Amit wrote the code.  I've CC'd
> him even though I expect he will notice it anyways.

Andreas, thanks for adding me to the CC list!
 
> > My testcase:
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > blksize = 0x1000;
> > fd = open(argv[1], O_RDWR|O_CREAT, 0700);
> > unsigned long long sz = 0x10000000UL;
> > /* allocating big blocks chunk */
> > syscall(__NR_fallocate, fd, 0, 0UL, sz)
> > 
> > /* grab all other available filesystem space */
> > tfd = open("tmp", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_DIRECT, 0700);
> > while( write(tfd, buf, 4096) > 0); /* loop untill ENOSPC */
> > fsync(fd); /* just in case */
> > while (pos < sz) {
> > 	/* each seek+ write operation result in splits uninitialized extent
> > 	in three extents. Splitting may result in new extent allocation
> > 	which probably will fail because of ENOSPC*/
> > 
> > 	lseek(fd, blksize*2 -1, SEEK_CUR);
> > 	if ((ret = write(fd, 'a', 1)) != 1)
> > 		exit(1);
> > 	pos += blksize * 2;
> > }
> 
> Interesting test, and well thought out...

Dmitry, Good catch and thanks for the patch below !
Please add "Acked-by: Amit Arora <aarora@...ibm.com>".
 
> The other item that Amit and I discussed in the past is in the case of
> ENOSPC it would be possible instead of splitting the extent to zero-fill
> the smaller extent (1 block in your test case) and write the whole thing
> as an initialized extent.  This could then either be merged with the
> previous or following allocated extent, or the whole extent zeroed if that
> was not possible.

Yes, this is one of the things pending..
 
> It would add some latency in the worst case to do this in the kernel,
> but this would only happen if there is no free space at all.  It might
> even be desirable to always zero-fill small extents instead of splitting
> uninitialized extents, because a random write of 64kB is not more expensive
> than 4kB and avoids overhead of splitting the nicely contiguous extent tree.

I feel this is debatable and it may not be easy to define what extent size is
small enough. Anyhow, since we merge the extents when possible it should
not be too bad, unless someone deliberately writes to alternate blocks
in the uninitialized extent. Hence, as Mingming suggested, I too think that we
should be doing it only when necessary.

--
Regards,
Amit Arora
 
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
> > ---
> >  fs/ext4/extents.c |    5 +++--
> >  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> > index 8528774..fc8e508 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> > @@ -2320,9 +2320,10 @@ int ext4_ext_get_blocks(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
> >  			ret = ext4_ext_convert_to_initialized(handle, inode,
> >  								path, iblock,
> >  								max_blocks);
> > -			if (ret <= 0)
> > +			if (ret <= 0) {
> > +				err = ret;
> >  				goto out2;
> > -			else
> > +			} else
> >  				allocated = ret;
> >  			goto outnew;
> >  		}
> > -- 
> > 1.5.3.1.40.g6972-dirty
> > 
> > 
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> Cheers, Andreas
> --
> Andreas Dilger
> Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
> Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists