linux-kernel - [PATCH v8 10/15] xfs: add large atomic writes checks in xfs_direct_write_iomap

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20250422122739.2230121-11-john.g.garry@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:27:34 +0000
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: brauner@...nel.org, djwong@...nel.org, hch@....de, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        jack@...e.cz, cem@...nel.org
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, dchinner@...hat.com,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com, ritesh.list@...il.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, catherine.hoang@...cle.com,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Subject: [PATCH v8 10/15] xfs: add large atomic writes checks in xfs_direct_write_iomap_begin()

For when large atomic writes (> 1x FS block) are supported, there will be
various occasions when HW offload may not be possible.

Such instances include:
- unaligned extent mapping wrt write length
- extent mappings which do not cover the full write, e.g. the write spans
  sparse or mixed-mapping extents
- the write length is greater than HW offload can support

In those cases, we need to fallback to the CoW-based atomic write mode. For
this, report special code -ENOPROTOOPT to inform the caller that HW
offload-based method is not possible.

In addition to the occasions mentioned, if the write covers an unallocated
range, we again judge that we need to rely on the CoW-based method when we
would need to allocate anything more than 1x block. This is because if we
allocate less blocks that is required for the write, then again HW
offload-based method would not be possible. So we are taking a pessimistic
approach to writes covering unallocated space.

Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
[djwong: don't allow too-small hw atomic writes either]
Signed-off-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
---
 fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
index 049655ebc3f7..150354e5b436 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
@@ -798,6 +798,41 @@ imap_spans_range(
 	return true;
 }
 
+static bool
+xfs_bmap_hw_atomic_write_possible(
+	struct xfs_inode	*ip,
+	struct xfs_bmbt_irec	*imap,
+	xfs_fileoff_t		offset_fsb,
+	xfs_fileoff_t		end_fsb)
+{
+	struct xfs_mount	*mp = ip->i_mount;
+	xfs_fsize_t		len = XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, end_fsb - offset_fsb);
+
+	/*
+	 * atomic writes are required to be naturally aligned for disk blocks,
+	 * which ensures that we adhere to block layer rules that we won't
+	 * straddle any boundary or violate write alignment requirement.
+	 */
+	if (!IS_ALIGNED(imap->br_startblock, imap->br_blockcount))
+		return false;
+
+	/*
+	 * Spanning multiple extents would mean that multiple BIOs would be
+	 * issued, and so would lose atomicity required for REQ_ATOMIC-based
+	 * atomics.
+	 */
+	if (!imap_spans_range(imap, offset_fsb, end_fsb))
+		return false;
+
+	/*
+	 * The ->iomap_begin caller should ensure this, but check anyway.
+	 */
+	if (len > xfs_inode_hw_atomicwrite_max(ip))
+		return false;
+
+	return true;
+}
+
 static int
 xfs_direct_write_iomap_begin(
 	struct inode		*inode,
@@ -812,9 +847,11 @@ xfs_direct_write_iomap_begin(
 	struct xfs_bmbt_irec	imap, cmap;
 	xfs_fileoff_t		offset_fsb = XFS_B_TO_FSBT(mp, offset);
 	xfs_fileoff_t		end_fsb = xfs_iomap_end_fsb(mp, offset, length);
+	xfs_fileoff_t		orig_end_fsb = end_fsb;
 	int			nimaps = 1, error = 0;
 	bool			shared = false;
 	u16			iomap_flags = 0;
+	bool			needs_alloc;
 	unsigned int		lockmode;
 	u64			seq;
 
@@ -875,13 +912,37 @@ xfs_direct_write_iomap_begin(
 				(flags & IOMAP_DIRECT) || IS_DAX(inode));
 		if (error)
 			goto out_unlock;
-		if (shared)
+		if (shared) {
+			if ((flags & IOMAP_ATOMIC) &&
+			    !xfs_bmap_hw_atomic_write_possible(ip, &cmap,
+					offset_fsb, end_fsb)) {
+				error = -ENOPROTOOPT;
+				goto out_unlock;
+			}
 			goto out_found_cow;
+		}
 		end_fsb = imap.br_startoff + imap.br_blockcount;
 		length = XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, end_fsb) - offset;
 	}
 
-	if (imap_needs_alloc(inode, flags, &imap, nimaps))
+	needs_alloc = imap_needs_alloc(inode, flags, &imap, nimaps);
+
+	if (flags & IOMAP_ATOMIC) {
+		error = -ENOPROTOOPT;
+		/*
+		 * If we allocate less than what is required for the write
+		 * then we may end up with multiple extents, which means that
+		 * REQ_ATOMIC-based cannot be used, so avoid this possibility.
+		 */
+		if (needs_alloc && orig_end_fsb - offset_fsb > 1)
+			goto out_unlock;
+
+		if (!xfs_bmap_hw_atomic_write_possible(ip, &imap, offset_fsb,
+				orig_end_fsb))
+			goto out_unlock;
+	}
+
+	if (needs_alloc)
 		goto allocate_blocks;
 
 	/*
-- 
2.31.1