linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: replace stripe extents

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: <4211723f-ddc9-4646-91c3-14a9a1769d22@gmx.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 16:48:34 +0930
From: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com>
To: Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
 Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Qu Wenru <wqu@...e.com>, Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>,
 Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: replace stripe extents



在 2024/7/9 16:02, Johannes Thumshirn 写道:
> From: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@....com>
>
> Update stripe extents in case a write to an already existing address
> incoming.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@....com>

Looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>

But still as I mentioned in the original thread, I'm wondering why
dev-replace of RST needs to update RST entry.

I'd prefer to do a dev-extent level copy so that no RST/chunk needs to
be updated, just like what we did for non-RST cases.

But so far the change should be good enough for us to continue the testing.

Thanks,
Qu

> ---
>   fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c
> index e6f7a234b8f6..fd56535b2289 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c
> @@ -73,6 +73,55 @@ int btrfs_delete_raid_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 start, u64 le
>   	return ret;
>   }
>
> +static int update_raid_extent_item(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> +				   struct btrfs_key *key,
> +				   struct btrfs_io_context *bioc)
> +{
> +	struct btrfs_path *path;
> +	struct extent_buffer *leaf;
> +	struct btrfs_stripe_extent *stripe_extent;
> +	int num_stripes;
> +	int ret;
> +	int slot;
> +
> +	path = btrfs_alloc_path();
> +	if (!path)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	ret = btrfs_search_slot(trans, trans->fs_info->stripe_root, key, path,
> +				0, 1);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret == 1 ? ret : -EINVAL;
> +
> +	leaf = path->nodes[0];
> +	slot = path->slots[0];
> +
> +	btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(leaf, key, slot);
> +	num_stripes = btrfs_num_raid_stripes(btrfs_item_size(leaf, slot));
> +	stripe_extent = btrfs_item_ptr(leaf, slot, struct btrfs_stripe_extent);
> +
> +	ASSERT(key->offset == bioc->size);
> +
> +	for (int i = 0; i < num_stripes; i++) {
> +		u64 devid = bioc->stripes[i].dev->devid;
> +		u64 physical = bioc->stripes[i].physical;
> +		u64 length = bioc->stripes[i].length;
> +		struct btrfs_raid_stride *raid_stride =
> +			&stripe_extent->strides[i];
> +
> +		if (length == 0)
> +			length = bioc->size;
> +
> +		btrfs_set_raid_stride_devid(leaf, raid_stride, devid);
> +		btrfs_set_raid_stride_physical(leaf, raid_stride, physical);
> +	}
> +
> +	btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty(trans, leaf);
> +	btrfs_free_path(path);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
>   static int btrfs_insert_one_raid_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>   					struct btrfs_io_context *bioc)
>   {
> @@ -112,6 +161,8 @@ static int btrfs_insert_one_raid_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>
>   	ret = btrfs_insert_item(trans, stripe_root, &stripe_key, stripe_extent,
>   				item_size);
> +	if (ret == -EEXIST)
> +		ret = update_raid_extent_item(trans, &stripe_key, bioc);
>   	if (ret)
>   		btrfs_abort_transaction(trans, ret);
>
>