linux-kernel - Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/3] ocfs2: add ocfs2_overwrite

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: <1437e732-35ea-9022-3358-dbe7d2708009@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:40:04 +0800
From:   Joseph Qi <jiangqi903@...il.com>
To:     Gang He <ghe@...e.com>, jlbec@...lplan.org, hch@....de,
        Goldwyn Rodrigues <RGoldwyn@...e.com>, mfasheh@...sity.com
Cc:     ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/3] ocfs2: add ocfs2_overwrite_io function



On 17/11/28 15:24, Gang He wrote:
> Hello Joseph,
> 
> 
>>>>
> 
>>
>> On 17/11/28 11:35, Gang He wrote:
>>> Hello Joseph,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Hi Gang,
>>>>
>>>> On 17/11/27 17:46, Gang He wrote:
>>>>> Add ocfs2_overwrite_io function, which is used to judge if
>>>>> overwrite allocated blocks, otherwise, the write will bring extra
>>>>> block allocation overhead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gang He <ghe@...e.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  fs/ocfs2/extent_map.c | 67 
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  fs/ocfs2/extent_map.h |  3 +++
>>>>>  2 files changed, 70 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.c b/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.c
>>>>> index e4719e0..98bf325 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.c
>>>>> @@ -832,6 +832,73 @@ int ocfs2_fiemap(struct inode *inode, struct 
>>>> fiemap_extent_info *fieinfo,
>>>>>  	return ret;
>>>>>  }
>>>>>  
>>>>> +/* Is IO overwriting allocated blocks? */
>>>>> +int ocfs2_overwrite_io(struct inode *inode, u64 map_start, u64 map_len,
>>>>> +		       int wait)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	int ret = 0, is_last;
>>>>> +	u32 mapping_end, cpos;
>>>>> +	struct ocfs2_super *osb = OCFS2_SB(inode->i_sb);
>>>>> +	struct buffer_head *di_bh = NULL;
>>>>> +	struct ocfs2_extent_rec rec;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (wait)
>>>>> +		ret = ocfs2_inode_lock(inode, &di_bh, 0);
>>>>> +	else
>>>>> +		ret = ocfs2_try_inode_lock(inode, &di_bh, 0);
>>>>> +	if (ret)
>>>>> +		goto out;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (wait)
>>>>> +		down_read(&OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_alloc_sem);
>>>>> +	else {
>>>>> +		if (!down_read_trylock(&OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_alloc_sem)) {
>>>>> +			ret = -EAGAIN;
>>>>> +			goto out_unlock1;
>>>>> +		}
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if ((OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_dyn_features & OCFS2_INLINE_DATA_FL) &&
>>>>> +	   ((map_start + map_len) <= i_size_read(inode)))
>>>>> +		goto out_unlock2;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	cpos = map_start >> osb->s_clustersize_bits;
>>>>> +	mapping_end = ocfs2_clusters_for_bytes(inode->i_sb,
>>>>> +					       map_start + map_len);
>>>>> +	is_last = 0;
>>>>> +	while (cpos < mapping_end && !is_last) {
>>>>> +		ret = ocfs2_get_clusters_nocache(inode, di_bh, cpos,
>>>>> +						 NULL, &rec, &is_last);
>>>>> +		if (ret) {
>>>>> +			mlog_errno(ret);
>>>>> +			goto out_unlock2;
>>>>> +		}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +		if (rec.e_blkno == 0ULL)
>>>>> +			break;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +		if (rec.e_flags & OCFS2_EXT_REFCOUNTED)
>>>>> +			break;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +		cpos = le32_to_cpu(rec.e_cpos) +
>>>>> +			le16_to_cpu(rec.e_leaf_clusters);
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (cpos < mapping_end)
>>>>> +		ret = 1;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +out_unlock2:
>>>>> +	brelse(di_bh);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	up_read(&OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_alloc_sem);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +out_unlock1:
>>>> Should brelse(di_bh) be here?
>>> If the code jumps to out_unlock1 directly, the di_bh pointer should be NULL, 
>> it is not necessary to release.
>>>
>> Umm... No, once going out here, we have already taken inode lock. So
>> di_bh should be released.
> Sorry, you are right.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>>> +	ocfs2_inode_unlock(inode, 0);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +out:
>>>>> +	return (ret ? 0 : 1);
>>>> I don't think EAGAIN and other error code can be handled the same. We
>>>> have to distinguish them.
>>> Ok, I think we can add one line log to report the error in case the error is 
>> not EAGAIN. 
>>>
>> My point is, there is no need to try again in several cases, e.g. EROFS
>> returned by ocfs2_get_clusters_nocache.
> In this function ocfs2_overwrite_io() only can return True(1) or False(0), then I think we can only give a error print before return true/false.
> It is not necessary to return another value, but should let the user know any possible error message.
>This is because you just ignore the error and convert it to 0 or 1.
But in your next patch, if !ocfs2_overwrite_io(), it will return EGAIN
to upper layer and let it try again.
But in some cases, e.g. EROFS, trying again is meaningless. That's why
we can't simply return 0 or 1 here. Also we have to distinguish the
error code in the next patch.

> Thanks
> Gang 
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Joseph
>>>>
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>>  int ocfs2_seek_data_hole_offset(struct file *file, loff_t *offset, int 
>>>> whence)
>>>>>  {
>>>>>  	struct inode *inode = file->f_mapping->host;
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.h b/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.h
>>>>> index 67ea57d..fd9e86a 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.h
>>>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.h
>>>>> @@ -53,6 +53,9 @@ int ocfs2_extent_map_get_blocks(struct inode *inode, u64 
>>>> v_blkno, u64 *p_blkno,
>>>>>  int ocfs2_fiemap(struct inode *inode, struct fiemap_extent_info *fieinfo,
>>>>>  		 u64 map_start, u64 map_len);
>>>>>  
>>>>> +int ocfs2_overwrite_io(struct inode *inode, u64 map_start, u64 map_len,
>>>>> +		       int wait);
>>>>> +
>>>>>  int ocfs2_seek_data_hole_offset(struct file *file, loff_t *offset, int 
>>>> origin);
>>>>>  
>>>>>  int ocfs2_xattr_get_clusters(struct inode *inode, u32 v_cluster,
>>>>>
>>>