[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aSbksRztaQ0UtHKB@li-dc0c254c-257c-11b2-a85c-98b6c1322444.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 16:59:53 +0530
From: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...weicloud.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
jack@...e.cz, yi.zhang@...wei.com, yizhang089@...il.com,
libaokun1@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] ext4: don't zero the entire extent if
EXT4_EXT_DATA_PARTIAL_VALID1
On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 02:08:01PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
> From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
>
> When allocating initialized blocks from a large unwritten extent, or
> when splitting an unwritten extent during end I/O and converting it to
> initialized, there is currently a potential issue of stale data if the
> extent needs to be split in the middle.
>
> 0 A B N
> [UUUUUUUUUUUU] U: unwritten extent
> [--DDDDDDDD--] D: valid data
> |<- ->| ----> this range needs to be initialized
>
> ext4_split_extent() first try to split this extent at B with
> EXT4_EXT_DATA_ENTIRE_VALID1 and EXT4_EXT_MAY_ZEROOUT flag set, but
> ext4_split_extent_at() failed to split this extent due to temporary lack
> of space. It zeroout B to N and mark the entire extent from 0 to N
> as written.
>
> 0 A B N
> [WWWWWWWWWWWW] W: written extent
> [SSDDDDDDDDZZ] Z: zeroed, S: stale data
>
> ext4_split_extent() then try to split this extent at A with
> EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID2 flag set. This time, it split successfully and left
> a stale written extent from 0 to A.
>
> 0 A B N
> [WW|WWWWWWWWWW]
> [SS|DDDDDDDDZZ]
>
> Fix this by pass EXT4_EXT_DATA_PARTIAL_VALID1 to ext4_split_extent_at()
> when splitting at B, don't convert the entire extent to written and left
> it as unwritten after zeroing out B to N. The remaining work is just
> like the standard two-part split. ext4_split_extent() will pass the
> EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID2 flag when it calls ext4_split_extent_at() for the
> second time, allowing it to properly handle the split. If the split is
> successful, it will keep extent from 0 to A as unwritten.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
Hi Yi,
This patch looks good to me. I'm just wondering since this is a stale
data exposure that might need a backport, should we add a Fixes: tag
and also keep these fixes before the refactor in 1/13 so backport is
easier.
Other than that, feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
Regards,
ojaswin
> ---
> fs/ext4/extents.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> index f7aa497e5d6c..cafe66cb562f 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> @@ -3294,6 +3294,13 @@ static struct ext4_ext_path *ext4_split_extent_at(handle_t *handle,
> err = ext4_ext_zeroout(inode, &zero_ex);
> if (err)
> goto fix_extent_len;
> + /*
> + * The first half contains partially valid data, the splitting
> + * of this extent has not been completed, fix extent length
> + * and ext4_split_extent() split will the first half again.
> + */
> + if (split_flag & EXT4_EXT_DATA_PARTIAL_VALID1)
> + goto fix_extent_len;
>
> /* update the extent length and mark as initialized */
> ex->ee_len = cpu_to_le16(ee_len);
> @@ -3364,7 +3371,9 @@ static struct ext4_ext_path *ext4_split_extent(handle_t *handle,
> split_flag1 |= EXT4_EXT_MARK_UNWRIT1 |
> EXT4_EXT_MARK_UNWRIT2;
> if (split_flag & EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID2)
> - split_flag1 |= EXT4_EXT_DATA_ENTIRE_VALID1;
> + split_flag1 |= map->m_lblk > ee_block ?
> + EXT4_EXT_DATA_PARTIAL_VALID1 :
> + EXT4_EXT_DATA_ENTIRE_VALID1;
> path = ext4_split_extent_at(handle, inode, path,
> map->m_lblk + map->m_len, split_flag1, flags1);
> if (IS_ERR(path))
> --
> 2.46.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists