linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/13] iomap: fix iomap_dio_zero() for fs bs

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: <3pqmgrlewo6ctcwakdvbvjqixac5en6irlipe5aiz6vkylfyni@2luhrs36ke5r>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:33:21 +0100
From: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, david@...morbit.com, chandan.babu@...cle.com, 
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mcgrof@...nel.org, ziy@...dia.com, hare@...e.de, 
	djwong@...nel.org, gost.dev@...sung.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] iomap: fix iomap_dio_zero() for fs bs > system
 page size

> I thought we were going to use the huge_zero_page for this?

Yes. We discussed that huge_zero_page might fail, so we concluded that
we needed an api that can return arbitrary folio order that will not
fail:
```
your point about it possibly failing is correct.  so i think we need an
api which definitely returns a folio, but it might be of arbitrary
order.
```

I couldn't come up with implementing your latter suggestion, so I
informed darrick that let's use this patch for now, and add the
arbitrary folio order with zero as a later enhancement.

If we want to use mm_huge_zero_page, then this should work:

diff --git a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
index 04f6c5548136..b6a3f52f48da 100644
--- a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
+++ b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
@@ -237,10 +237,17 @@ static void iomap_dio_zero(const struct iomap_iter *iter, struct iomap_dio *dio,
 {
        struct inode *inode = file_inode(dio->iocb->ki_filp);
        struct page *page = ZERO_PAGE(0);
+       struct folio *folio = NULL;
        struct bio *bio;
 
        WARN_ON_ONCE(len > (BIO_MAX_VECS * PAGE_SIZE));
 
+       if (len > PAGE_SIZE) {
+               page = mm_get_huge_zero_page(current->mm);
+               if (!page)
+                       page = ZERO_PAGE(0);
+       }
+
        bio = iomap_dio_alloc_bio(iter, dio, BIO_MAX_VECS,
                                  REQ_OP_WRITE | REQ_SYNC | REQ_IDLE);
        fscrypt_set_bio_crypt_ctx(bio, inode, pos >> inode->i_blkbits,
@@ -249,13 +256,15 @@ static void iomap_dio_zero(const struct iomap_iter *iter, struct iomap_dio *dio,
        bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = iomap_sector(&iter->iomap, pos);
        bio->bi_private = dio;
        bio->bi_end_io = iomap_dio_bio_end_io;
+       folio = page_folio(page);
 
        while (len) {
-               unsigned int io_len = min_t(unsigned int, len, PAGE_SIZE);
+               size_t size = min(len, folio_size(folio));
 
-               __bio_add_page(bio, page, io_len, 0);
-               len -= io_len;
+               bio_add_folio_nofail(bio, folio, size, 0);
+               len -= size;
        }
+
        iomap_dio_submit_bio(iter, dio, bio, pos);
 }

Let me know if we should go for this or let's keep the original patch
and add a ZERO_FOLIO_ORDER API that will not fail and use it as a later
enhancement.