[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <488523.1702996313@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 14:31:53 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.com>,
Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@...rosoft.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...nel.org>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>, linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
v9fs@...ts.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/39] netfs: Add iov_iters to (sub)requests to describe various buffers
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org> wrote:
> > @@ -408,6 +417,10 @@ int netfs_write_begin(struct netfs_inode *ctx,
> > ractl._nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> > netfs_rreq_expand(rreq, &ractl);
> >
> > + /* Set up the output buffer */
> > + iov_iter_xarray(&rreq->iter, ITER_DEST, &mapping->i_pages,
> > + rreq->start, rreq->len);
>
> Should the above be ITER_SOURCE ?
No - we're in ->write_begin() and are prefetching. If you look in the code,
there's a netfs_begin_read() call a few lines below. The output buffer for
the read is the page we're going to write into.
Note that netfs_write_begin() should be considered deprecated as the whole
perform_write thing will get replaced.
> > @@ -88,6 +78,11 @@ static void netfs_read_from_server(struct netfs_io_request *rreq,
> > struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq)
> > {
> > netfs_stat(&netfs_n_rh_download);
> > + if (iov_iter_count(&subreq->io_iter) != subreq->len - subreq->transferred)
> > + pr_warn("R=%08x[%u] ITER PRE-MISMATCH %zx != %zx-%zx %lx\n",
> > + rreq->debug_id, subreq->debug_index,
> > + iov_iter_count(&subreq->io_iter), subreq->len,
> > + subreq->transferred, subreq->flags);
>
> pr_warn is a bit alarmist, esp given the cryptic message. Maybe demote
> this to INFO or DEBUG?
>
> Does this indicate a bug in the client or that the server is sending us
> malformed frames?
Good question. The network filesystem updated subreq->transferred to indicate
it had transferred X amount of data, but the iterator had been updated to
indicate Y amount of data was transferred. They really ought to match as it
may otherwise indicate an underrun (and potential leakage of old data).
Overruns are less of a problem since the iterator would have to 'go negative'
as it were.
However, it might be better just to leave io_iter unchecked since we end up
resetting it anyway each time we reinvoke the ->issue_read() op. It's always
possible that it will get copied and a different iterator get passed to the
network layer or cache fs - and so the change to the iterator then has to be
manually propagated just to avoid the warning.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists