netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 33/40] netfs, cachefiles: Pass upper bound length to allow expansion

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 22:04:12 +0800
From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
 Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>, Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.com>,
 Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@...rosoft.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
 Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
 Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...nel.org>, Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
 Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>, linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
 linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, v9fs@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
 Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 33/40] netfs, cachefiles: Pass upper bound length to
 allow expansion

Hi David,

On 2023/12/21 21:23, David Howells wrote:
> Make netfslib pass the maximum length to the ->prepare_write() op to tell
> the cache how much it can expand the length of a write to.  This allows a
> write to the server at the end of a file to be limited to a few bytes
> whilst writing an entire block to the cache (something required by direct
> I/O).
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
> cc: linux-cachefs@...hat.com
> cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
> cc: linux-mm@...ck.org
> ---
>   fs/cachefiles/internal.h |  2 +-
>   fs/cachefiles/io.c       | 10 ++++++----
>   fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c |  2 +-
>   fs/netfs/fscache_io.c    |  2 +-
>   fs/netfs/io.c            |  2 +-
>   fs/netfs/objects.c       |  1 +
>   fs/netfs/output.c        | 25 ++++++++++---------------
>   fs/smb/client/fscache.c  |  2 +-
>   include/linux/netfs.h    |  5 +++--
>   9 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/cachefiles/internal.h b/fs/cachefiles/internal.h
> index 2ad58c465208..1af48d576a34 100644
> --- a/fs/cachefiles/internal.h
> +++ b/fs/cachefiles/internal.h
> @@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ extern bool cachefiles_begin_operation(struct netfs_cache_resources *cres,
>   				       enum fscache_want_state want_state);
>   extern int __cachefiles_prepare_write(struct cachefiles_object *object,
>   				      struct file *file,
> -				      loff_t *_start, size_t *_len,
> +				      loff_t *_start, size_t *_len, size_t upper_len,
>   				      bool no_space_allocated_yet);
>   extern int __cachefiles_write(struct cachefiles_object *object,
>   			      struct file *file,
> diff --git a/fs/cachefiles/io.c b/fs/cachefiles/io.c
> index 009d23cd435b..bffffedce4a9 100644
> --- a/fs/cachefiles/io.c
> +++ b/fs/cachefiles/io.c
> @@ -518,7 +518,7 @@ cachefiles_prepare_ondemand_read(struct netfs_cache_resources *cres,
>    */
>   int __cachefiles_prepare_write(struct cachefiles_object *object,
>   			       struct file *file,
> -			       loff_t *_start, size_t *_len,
> +			       loff_t *_start, size_t *_len, size_t upper_len,
>   			       bool no_space_allocated_yet)
>   {
>   	struct cachefiles_cache *cache = object->volume->cache;
> @@ -530,6 +530,8 @@ int __cachefiles_prepare_write(struct cachefiles_object *object,
>   	down = start - round_down(start, PAGE_SIZE);
>   	*_start = start - down;
>   	*_len = round_up(down + len, PAGE_SIZE);
> +	if (down < start || *_len > upper_len)
> +		return -ENOBUFS;

Sorry for bothering. We just found some strange when testing
today-next EROFS over fscache.

I'm not sure the meaning of
     if (down < start

For example, if start is page-aligned, down == 0.

so as long as start > 0 and page-aligned, it will return
-ENOBUFS.  Does it an intended behavior?

Thanks,
Gao Xiang