[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170925232945.GL10955@dastard>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:29:45 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] xfs: protect S_DAX transitions in XFS write path
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 05:14:01PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> In the current XFS write I/O path we check IS_DAX() in
> xfs_file_write_iter() to decide whether to do DAX I/O, direct I/O or
> buffered I/O. This check is done without holding the XFS_IOLOCK, though,
> which means that if we allow S_DAX to be manipulated via the inode flag we
> can run into this race:
>
> CPU 0 CPU 1
> ----- -----
> xfs_file_write_iter()
> IS_DAX() << returns false
> xfs_ioctl_setattr()
> xfs_ioctl_setattr_dax_invalidate()
> xfs_ilock(XFS_MMAPLOCK|XFS_IOLOCK)
> sets S_DAX
> releases XFS_MMAPLOCK and XFS_IOLOCK
> xfs_file_buffered_aio_write()
> does buffered I/O to DAX inode, death
>
> Fix this by ensuring that we only check S_DAX when we hold the XFS_IOLOCK
> in the write path.
NACK. This breaks concurrent direct IO write semantics. We must not
take XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL on direct IO writes unless it is absolutely
necessary - there are lots of applications out there that rely on
these semantics for performance.
CHeers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists