linux-kernel - [PATCH 2/5] ceph: Remove error return from ceph_process_folio

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: <20251231024316.4643-3-CFSworks@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 18:43:13 -0800
From: Sam Edwards <cfsworks@...il.com>
To: Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>,
	Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>
Cc: Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@....com>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	Milind Changire <mchangir@...hat.com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
	ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Sam Edwards <CFSworks@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH 2/5] ceph: Remove error return from ceph_process_folio_batch()

Following the previous patch, ceph_process_folio_batch() no longer
returns errors because the writeback loop cannot handle them.

Since this function already indicates failure to lock any pages by
leaving `ceph_wbc.locked_pages == 0`, and the writeback loop has no way
to handle abandonment of a locked batch, change the return type of
ceph_process_folio_batch() to `void` and remove the pathological goto in
the writeback loop. The lack of a return code emphasizes that
ceph_process_folio_batch() is designed to be abort-free: that is, once
it commits a folio for writeback, it will not later abandon it or
propagate an error for that folio.

Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards <CFSworks@...il.com>
---
 fs/ceph/addr.c | 17 +++++------------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/ceph/addr.c b/fs/ceph/addr.c
index 3462df35d245..2b722916fb9b 100644
--- a/fs/ceph/addr.c
+++ b/fs/ceph/addr.c
@@ -1283,16 +1283,16 @@ static inline int move_dirty_folio_in_page_array(struct address_space *mapping,
 }
 
 static
-int ceph_process_folio_batch(struct address_space *mapping,
-			     struct writeback_control *wbc,
-			     struct ceph_writeback_ctl *ceph_wbc)
+void ceph_process_folio_batch(struct address_space *mapping,
+			      struct writeback_control *wbc,
+			      struct ceph_writeback_ctl *ceph_wbc)
 {
 	struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
 	struct ceph_fs_client *fsc = ceph_inode_to_fs_client(inode);
 	struct ceph_client *cl = fsc->client;
 	struct folio *folio = NULL;
 	unsigned i;
-	int rc = 0;
+	int rc;
 
 	for (i = 0; can_next_page_be_processed(ceph_wbc, i); i++) {
 		folio = ceph_wbc->fbatch.folios[i];
@@ -1322,12 +1322,10 @@ int ceph_process_folio_batch(struct address_space *mapping,
 		rc = ceph_check_page_before_write(mapping, wbc,
 						  ceph_wbc, folio);
 		if (rc == -ENODATA) {
-			rc = 0;
 			folio_unlock(folio);
 			ceph_wbc->fbatch.folios[i] = NULL;
 			continue;
 		} else if (rc == -E2BIG) {
-			rc = 0;
 			folio_unlock(folio);
 			ceph_wbc->fbatch.folios[i] = NULL;
 			break;
@@ -1369,7 +1367,6 @@ int ceph_process_folio_batch(struct address_space *mapping,
 		rc = move_dirty_folio_in_page_array(mapping, wbc, ceph_wbc,
 				folio);
 		if (rc) {
-			rc = 0;
 			folio_redirty_for_writepage(wbc, folio);
 			folio_unlock(folio);
 			break;
@@ -1380,8 +1377,6 @@ int ceph_process_folio_batch(struct address_space *mapping,
 	}
 
 	ceph_wbc->processed_in_fbatch = i;
-
-	return rc;
 }
 
 static inline
@@ -1685,10 +1680,8 @@ static int ceph_writepages_start(struct address_space *mapping,
 			break;
 
 process_folio_batch:
-		rc = ceph_process_folio_batch(mapping, wbc, &ceph_wbc);
+		ceph_process_folio_batch(mapping, wbc, &ceph_wbc);
 		ceph_shift_unused_folios_left(&ceph_wbc.fbatch);
-		if (rc)
-			goto release_folios;
 
 		/* did we get anything? */
 		if (!ceph_wbc.locked_pages)
-- 
2.51.2