linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] ext4: introduce direct IO write path using iomap infrastructure

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]

Message-ID: <20190916121248.GD4005@infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 16 Sep 2019 05:12:48 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Matthew Bobrowski <mbobrowski@...browski.org>
Cc:     tytso@....edu, jack@...e.cz, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        david@...morbit.com, hch@...radead.org, darrick.wong@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] ext4: introduce direct IO write path using iomap
 infrastructure

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 09:04:46PM +1000, Matthew Bobrowski wrote:
> @@ -213,12 +214,16 @@ static ssize_t ext4_write_checks(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
>  	struct inode *inode = file_inode(iocb->ki_filp);
>  	ssize_t ret;
>  
> +	if (unlikely(IS_IMMUTABLE(inode)))
> +		return -EPERM;
> +
>  	ret = generic_write_checks(iocb, from);
>  	if (ret <= 0)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	if (unlikely(IS_IMMUTABLE(inode)))
> -		return -EPERM;
> +	ret = file_modified(iocb->ki_filp);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return 0;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * If we have encountered a bitmap-format file, the size limit

Independent of the error return issue you probably want to split
modifying ext4_write_checks into a separate preparation patch.

> +/*
> + * For a write that extends the inode size, ext4_dio_write_iter() will
> + * wait for the write to complete. Consequently, operations performed
> + * within this function are still covered by the inode_lock(). On
> + * success, this function returns 0.
> + */
> +static int ext4_dio_write_end_io(struct kiocb *iocb, ssize_t size, int error,
> +				 unsigned int flags)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +	loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos;
> +	struct inode *inode = file_inode(iocb->ki_filp);
> +
> +	if (error) {
> +		ret = ext4_handle_failed_inode_extension(inode, offset + size);
> +		return ret ? ret : error;
> +	}

Just a personal opinion, but I find the use of the ternary operator
here a little weird.

A plain old:

	ret = ext4_handle_failed_inode_extension(inode, offset + size);
	if (ret)
		return ret;
	return error;

flow much easier.

> +	if (!inode_trylock(inode)) {
> +		if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT)
> +			return -EAGAIN;
> +		inode_lock(inode);
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!ext4_dio_checks(inode)) {
> +		inode_unlock(inode);
> +		/*
> +		 * Fallback to buffered IO if the operation on the
> +		 * inode is not supported by direct IO.
> +		 */
> +		return ext4_buffered_write_iter(iocb, from);

I think you want to lift the locking into the caller of this function
so that you don't have to unlock and relock for the buffered write
fallback.

> +	if (offset + count > i_size_read(inode) ||
> +	    offset + count > EXT4_I(inode)->i_disksize) {
> +		ext4_update_i_disksize(inode, inode->i_size);
> +		extend = true;

Doesn't the ext4_update_i_disksize need to be under an open journal
handle?