linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/13] filemap: align the index to mapping_min

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: <37kubwweih4zwvxzvjbhnhxunrafawdqaqggzcw6xayd6vtrfl@dllnk6n53akf>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:06:37 +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 03/13] filemap: align the index to mapping_min_order in
 the page cache

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 02:40:42PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:49:26AM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> > From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
> > 
> > Supporting mapping_min_order implies that we guarantee each folio in the
> > page cache has at least an order of mapping_min_order. So when adding new
> > folios to the page cache we must ensure the index used is aligned to the
> > mapping_min_order as the page cache requires the index to be aligned to
> > the order of the folio.
> 
> This seems like a remarkably complicated way of achieving:
> 
> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
> index 5603ced05fb7..36105dad4440 100644
> --- a/mm/filemap.c
> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> @@ -2427,9 +2427,11 @@ static int filemap_update_page(struct kiocb *iocb,
>  }
>  
>  static int filemap_create_folio(struct file *file,
> -		struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t index,
> +		struct address_space *mapping, loff_t pos,
>  		struct folio_batch *fbatch)
>  {
> +	pgoff_t index;
> +	unsigned int min_order;
>  	struct folio *folio;
>  	int error;
>  
> @@ -2451,6 +2453,8 @@ static int filemap_create_folio(struct file *file,
>  	 * well to keep locking rules simple.
>  	 */
>  	filemap_invalidate_lock_shared(mapping);
> +	min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(mapping);
> +	index = (pos >> (min_order + PAGE_SHIFT)) << min_order;

That is some cool mathfu. I will add a comment here as it might not be
that obvious to some people (i.e me).

Thanks.

>  	error = filemap_add_folio(mapping, folio, index,
>  			mapping_gfp_constraint(mapping, GFP_KERNEL));
>  	if (error == -EEXIST)
> @@ -2511,8 +2515,7 @@ static int filemap_get_pages(struct kiocb *iocb, size_t count,
>  	if (!folio_batch_count(fbatch)) {
>  		if (iocb->ki_flags & (IOCB_NOWAIT | IOCB_WAITQ))
>  			return -EAGAIN;
> -		err = filemap_create_folio(filp, mapping,
> -				iocb->ki_pos >> PAGE_SHIFT, fbatch);
> +		err = filemap_create_folio(filp, mapping, iocb->ki_pos, fbatch);
>  		if (err == AOP_TRUNCATED_PAGE)
>  			goto retry;
>  		return err;