linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v3 11/21] xfs: Unmap blocks according to forcealign

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: <05016d8f-cc25-4148-bf78-6567cc2dfbc4@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 11:54:43 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: djwong@...nel.org, hch@....de, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org,
        jack@...e.cz, chandan.babu@...cle.com, willy@...radead.org,
        axboe@...nel.dk, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        tytso@....edu, jbongio@...gle.com, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com,
        ritesh.list@...il.com, mcgrof@...nel.org, p.raghav@...sung.com,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, catherine.hoang@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 11/21] xfs: Unmap blocks according to forcealign

On 01/05/2024 01:10, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 05:47:36PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> For when forcealign is enabled, blocks in an inode need to be unmapped
>> according to extent alignment, like what is already done for rtvol.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
>> ---
>>   fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>   fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h       |  5 +++++
>>   2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
>> index 4f39a43d78a7..4a78ab193753 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
>> @@ -5339,6 +5339,15 @@ xfs_bmap_del_extent_real(
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
>>   
>> +/* Return the offset of an block number within an extent for forcealign. */
>> +static xfs_extlen_t
>> +xfs_forcealign_extent_offset(
>> +	struct xfs_inode	*ip,
>> +	xfs_fsblock_t		bno)
>> +{
>> +	return bno & (ip->i_extsize - 1);
>> +}
>> +
>>   /*
>>    * Unmap (remove) blocks from a file.
>>    * If nexts is nonzero then the number of extents to remove is limited to
>> @@ -5361,6 +5370,7 @@ __xfs_bunmapi(
>>   	struct xfs_bmbt_irec	got;		/* current extent record */
>>   	struct xfs_ifork	*ifp;		/* inode fork pointer */
>>   	int			isrt;		/* freeing in rt area */
>> +	int			isforcealign;	/* freeing for file inode with forcealign */
>>   	int			logflags;	/* transaction logging flags */
>>   	xfs_extlen_t		mod;		/* rt extent offset */
>>   	struct xfs_mount	*mp = ip->i_mount;
>> @@ -5397,7 +5407,10 @@ __xfs_bunmapi(
>>   		return 0;
>>   	}
>>   	XFS_STATS_INC(mp, xs_blk_unmap);
>> -	isrt = xfs_ifork_is_realtime(ip, whichfork);
>> +	isrt = (whichfork == XFS_DATA_FORK) && XFS_IS_REALTIME_INODE(ip);
> 
> Why did you change this check? What's wrong with
> xfs_ifork_is_realtime(), and if there is something wrong, why
> shouldn't xfs_ifork_is_relatime() get fixed?

oops, I should have not made that change. I must have changed it when 
debugging and not reverted it.

> 
>> +	isforcealign = (whichfork == XFS_DATA_FORK) &&
>> +			xfs_inode_has_forcealign(ip) &&
>> +			xfs_inode_has_extsize(ip) && ip->i_extsize > 1;
> 
> This is one of the reasons why I said xfs_inode_has_forcealign()
> should be checking that extent size hints should be checked in that
> helper....

Right. In this particular case, I found that directories may be 
considered as well if we don't check for xfs_inode_has_extsize() (which 
we don't want).

> 
>>   	end = start + len;
>>   
>>   	if (!xfs_iext_lookup_extent_before(ip, ifp, &end, &icur, &got)) {
>> @@ -5459,11 +5472,15 @@ __xfs_bunmapi(
>>   		if (del.br_startoff + del.br_blockcount > end + 1)
>>   			del.br_blockcount = end + 1 - del.br_startoff;
>>   
>> -		if (!isrt || (flags & XFS_BMAPI_REMAP))
>> +		if ((!isrt && !isforcealign) || (flags & XFS_BMAPI_REMAP))
>>   			goto delete;
>>   
>> -		mod = xfs_rtb_to_rtxoff(mp,
>> -				del.br_startblock + del.br_blockcount);
>> +		if (isrt)
>> +			mod = xfs_rtb_to_rtxoff(mp,
>> +					del.br_startblock + del.br_blockcount);
>> +		else if (isforcealign)
>> +			mod = xfs_forcealign_extent_offset(ip,
>> +					del.br_startblock + del.br_blockcount);
> 
> There's got to be a cleaner way to do this.
> 
> We already know that either isrt or isforcealign must be set here,
> so there's no need for the "else if" construct.

right

> 
> Also, forcealign should take precedence over realtime, so that
> forcealign will work on realtime devices as well. I'd change this
> code to call a wrapper like:
> 
> 		mod = xfs_bunmapi_align(ip, del.br_startblock + del.br_blockcount);
> 
> static xfs_extlen_t
> xfs_bunmapi_align(
> 	struct xfs_inode	*ip,
> 	xfs_fsblock_t		bno)
> {
> 	if (!XFS_INODE_IS_REALTIME(ip)) {
> 		ASSERT(xfs_inode_has_forcealign(ip))
> 		if (is_power_of_2(ip->i_extsize))
> 			return bno & (ip->i_extsize - 1);
> 		return do_div(bno, ip->i_extsize);
> 	}
> 	return xfs_rtb_to_rtxoff(ip->i_mount, bno);
> }

ok, that's neater

Thanks,
John