Message-ID: <8d8860371bcf4db044a8e1559b674189996c0790.camel@ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2026 21:08:51 +0000
From: Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@....com>
To: "cfsworks@...il.com" <cfsworks@...il.com>
CC: Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>, "brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
        "ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org" <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jlayton@...nel.org" <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Milind Changire
	<mchangir@...hat.com>,
        "idryomov@...il.com" <idryomov@...il.com>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/5] ceph: Do not propagate page array emplacement errors
 as batch errors

On Mon, 2026-01-05 at 22:52 -0800, Sam Edwards wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 12:24 PM Viacheslav Dubeyko
> <Slava.Dubeyko@....com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2025-12-30 at 18:43 -0800, Sam Edwards wrote:
> > > When fscrypt is enabled, move_dirty_folio_in_page_array() may fail
> > > because it needs to allocate bounce buffers to store the encrypted
> > > versions of each folio. Each folio beyond the first allocates its bounce
> > > buffer with GFP_NOWAIT. Failures are common (and expected) under this
> > > allocation mode; they should flush (not abort) the batch.
> > > 
> > > However, ceph_process_folio_batch() uses the same `rc` variable for its
> > > own return code and for capturing the return codes of its routine calls;
> > > failing to reset `rc` back to 0 results in the error being propagated
> > > out to the main writeback loop, which cannot actually tolerate any
> > > errors here: once `ceph_wbc.pages` is allocated, it must be passed to
> > > ceph_submit_write() to be freed. If it survives until the next iteration
> > > (e.g. due to the goto being followed), ceph_allocate_page_array()'s
> > > BUG_ON() will oops the worker. (Subsequent patches in this series make
> > > the loop more robust.)
> > 
> 
> Hi Slava,
> 
> > I think you are right with the fix. We have the loop here and if we already
> > moved some dirty folios, then we should flush it. But what if we failed on the
> > first one folio, then should we return no error code in this case?
> 
> The case you ask about, where move_dirty_folio_in_page_array() returns
> an error for the first folio, is currently not possible:
> 1) The only error code that move_dirty_folio_in_page_array() can
> propagate is from fscrypt_encrypt_pagecache_blocks(), which it calls
> with GFP_NOFS for the first folio. The latter function's doc comment
> outright states:
>  * The bounce page allocation is mempool-backed, so it will always succeed when
>  * @gfp_flags includes __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM, e.g. when it's GFP_NOFS.
> 2) The error return isn't even reachable for the first folio because
> of the BUG_ON(ceph_wbc->locked_pages == 0); line.
> 

Unfortunately, the kernel code is not something completely stable. We cannot
rely on particular state of the code. The code should be stable, robust enough,
and ready for different situations. The mentioned BUG_ON() could be removed
somehow during refactoring because we already have comment there "better not
fail on first page!". Also, the behavior of fscrypt_encrypt_pagecache_blocks()
could be changed too. So, we need to expect any bad situation and this is why I
prefer to manage such potential (and maybe not so potential) erroneous
situation(s).

> > 
> > > 
> > > Note that this failure mode is currently masked due to another bug
> > > (addressed later in this series) that prevents multiple encrypted folios
> > > from being selected for the same write.
> > 
> > So, maybe, this patch has been not correctly placed in the order?
> 
> This crash is unmasked by patch 5 of this series. (It allows multiple
> folios to be batched when fscrypt is enabled.) Patch 5 has no hard
> dependency on anything else in this series, so it could -- in
> principle -- be ordered first as you suggest. However, that ordering
> would deliberately cause a regression in kernel stability, even if
> only briefly. That's not considered good practice in my view, as it
> may affect people who are trying to bisect and regression test. So the
> ordering of this series is: fix the crash in the unused code first,
> then fix the bug that makes it unused.
> 

OK, your point sounds confusing, frankly speaking. If we cannot reproduce the
issue because another bug hides the issue, then no such issue exists. And we
don't need to fix something. So, from the logical point of view, we need to fix
the first bug, then we can reproduce the hidden issue, and, finally, the fix
makes sense.

I didn't suggest too make the patch 5th as the first one. But I believe that
this patch should follow to the patch 5th. 

> > It will be
> > good to see the reproduction of the issue and which symptoms we have for this
> > issue. Do you have the reproduction script and call trace of the issue?
> 
> Fair point!
> 
> Function inlining makes the call trace not very interesting:
> Call trace:
>  ceph_writepages_start+0x16ec/0x18e0 [ceph] ()
>  do_writepages+0xb0/0x1c0
>  __writeback_single_inode+0x4c/0x4d8
>  writeback_sb_inodes+0x238/0x4c8
>  __writeback_inodes_wb+0x64/0x120
>  wb_writeback+0x320/0x3e8
>  wb_workfn+0x42c/0x518
>  process_one_work+0x17c/0x428
>  worker_thread+0x260/0x390
>  kthread+0x148/0x240
>  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> Code: 34ffdee0 52800020 3903e7e0 17fffef4 (d4210000)
> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
> Kernel panic - not syncing: Oops - BUG: Fatal exception
> 
> ceph_writepages_start+0x16ec corresponds to linux-6.18.2/fs/ceph/addr.c:1222
> 
> However, these repro steps should work:
> 1) Apply patch 5 from this series (and no other patches)
> 2) Mount CephFS and activate fscrypt
> 3) Copy a large directory into the CephFS mount
> 4) After dozens of GBs transferred, you should observe the above kernel oops

Could we have all of these details in the commit message?

Thanks,
Slava.

> 
> Warm regards,
> Sam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > For now, just reset `rc` when redirtying the folio and prevent the
> > > error from propagating. After this change, ceph_process_folio_batch() no
> > > longer returns errors; its only remaining failure indicator is
> > > `locked_pages == 0`, which the caller already handles correctly. The
> > > next patch in this series addresses this.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: ce80b76dd327 ("ceph: introduce ceph_process_folio_batch() method")
> > > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards <CFSworks@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/ceph/addr.c | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/ceph/addr.c b/fs/ceph/addr.c
> > > index 63b75d214210..3462df35d245 100644
> > > --- a/fs/ceph/addr.c
> > > +++ b/fs/ceph/addr.c
> > > @@ -1369,6 +1369,7 @@ 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;
> > 
> > I like the fix but I would like to clarify the above questions at first.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Slava.
> > 
> > >                       folio_redirty_for_writepage(wbc, folio);
> > >                       folio_unlock(folio);
> > >                       break;

Powered by blists - more mailing lists