[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090428170047.GC24043@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:00:47 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>, sandeen@...hat.com,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mark buffer_head mapping preallocate area as new
during write_begin with delayed allocation
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:05:54PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:48:21AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 03:01:45PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > >
> > > Looking at the source again i guess setting just b_dev is not enough.
> > > unmap_underlying_metadata looks at the mapping block number, which we
> > > don't have in case on unwritten buffer_head. How about the below patch ?
> > > It involve vfs changes. But i guess it is correct with respect to the
> > > meaning of BH_New (Disk mapping was newly created by get_block). I guess
> > > BH_New implies BH_Mapped.
> >
> > Argh. So we have multiple problems going on here. One is the
> > original problem, namely that of a partial write into an preallocated
> > block can leave garbage behind in that unitialized block.
> >
> > The other problem seems to be in the case of a delayed allocation
> > write, where we return a buffer_head which is marked new, and this
> > causes block_prepare_write() to call unmap_underlying_metadata(dev, 0).
>
> Not just that. On block allocation we are not calling
> unmap_underlying_metadata(dev, blocknumber) for delayed allocated
> blocks. That would imply file corruption.
I don't think I'm following you . If we write into block that was
delayed allocated. Are you saying we might get in trouble of the
delayed allocation block is mmap'ed in?
> The original reported problem is something really easy to reproduce. So
> i guess if we can have a ext4 local change that would fix the original
> problem that would be good. Considering that map_bh(bdev, 0) didn't
> create any issues till now, what we can do is to do a similar update
> for unwritten_buffer in ext4_da_block_write_prep. That's the v2 version
> of the patch with the below addition
> bh_result->b_blocknr = 0;
OK, I can put togehter a patch to do this. Whatever we do, I think
we're going to need a *lot* of testing.
- Ted
--
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