Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200828054629.583577-1-daeho43@gmail.com> <61996dcd-6db1-13fc-8239-7e684f3ec49e@kernel.org>
 <CACOAw_wc29AROzFhcGyC73i_vYZC1NmHP60uQfP7X-j6y6=kSA@mail.gmail.com> <bd1a8ffa-83ff-b774-9bed-ed68025d0c7a@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <bd1a8ffa-83ff-b774-9bed-ed68025d0c7a@huawei.com>
From:   Daeho Jeong <daeho43@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 31 Aug 2020 10:44:30 +0900
Message-ID: <CACOAw_y=O35_SFxdfsVER4+a+n-eE6f48NXF6CsAnj=Ms-dgkA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: prevent compressed file from being
 disabled after releasing cblocks
To:     Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Cc:     Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>, Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>,
        kernel-team@android.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Sorry, I didn't get your point.

So, do you think this patch is ok? And we need to consider that we
need more immutable checks for other cases?
Or you want to remove this immutable check from here and add the check
to each ioctl functions?

2020=EB=85=84 8=EC=9B=94 31=EC=9D=BC (=EC=9B=94) =EC=98=A4=EC=A0=84 10:24, =
Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84=B1:
>
> On 2020/8/31 7:42, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> > Do you have any reason not to put this check here?
>
> No, the place is okay to me. :)
>
> > If we do this check outside of here, we definitely make a mistake
> > sooner or later.
>
> I just want to see whether we can cover all cases in where we missed to
> add immutable check condition if necessary.
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > 2020=EB=85=84 8=EC=9B=94 30=EC=9D=BC (=EC=9D=BC) =EC=98=A4=ED=9B=84 12:=
24, Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84=B1:
> >>
> >> On 2020-8-28 13:46, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> >>> From: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>
> >>>
> >>> After releasing cblocks, the compressed file can be accidentally
> >>> disabled in compression mode, since it has zero cblocks. As we are
> >>> using IMMUTABLE flag to present released cblocks state, we can add
> >>> IMMUTABLE state check when considering the compressed file disabling.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>   fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 2 ++
> >>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >>> index 02811ce15059..14d30740ba03 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >>> @@ -3936,6 +3936,8 @@ static inline u64 f2fs_disable_compressed_file(=
struct inode *inode)
> >>>        if (!f2fs_compressed_file(inode))
> >>>                return 0;
> >>>        if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
> >>> +             if (IS_IMMUTABLE(inode))
> >>> +                     return 1;
> >>
> >> It looks most of callers are from ioctl, should we add immutable check=
 in f2fs
> >> ioctl interfaces if necessary? or I missed existed check.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>>                if (get_dirty_pages(inode))
> >>>                        return 1;
> >>>                if (fi->i_compr_blocks)
> >>>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> >