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: <YS5KudP4DBwlbPEp@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk> <YWR2cPKeDrc0uHTK@arm.com>
 <CAHk-=wjvQWj7mvdrgTedUW50c2fkdn6Hzxtsk-=ckkMrFoTXjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YWSnvq58jDsDuIik@arm.com> <CAHk-=wiNWOY5QW5ZJukt_9pHTWvrJhE2=DxPpEtFHAWdzOPDTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHc6FU7bpjAxP+4dfE-C0pzzQJN1p=C2j3vyXwUwf7fF9JF72w@mail.gmail.com>
 <YXE7fhDkqJbfDk6e@arm.com> <CAHc6FU5xTMOxuiEDyc9VO_V98=bvoDc-0OFi4jsGPgWJWjRJWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YXGexrdprC+NTslm@arm.com> <CAHc6FU7im8UzxWCzqUFMKOwyg9zoQ8OZ_M+rRC_E20yE5RNu9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <YXMFw34ZpW+CwlmI@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <YXMFw34ZpW+CwlmI@arm.com>
From:   Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Oct 2021 21:37:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHc6FU43-n3tk+vvhXKCX+oyUu4x23-vh8pg18wRgYsB0rt+rA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][arm64] possible infinite loop in btrfs search_ioctl()
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        cluster-devel <cluster-devel@redhat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com" <ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 8:41 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 08:00:50PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 7:09 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > > This discussion started with the btrfs search_ioctl() where, even if
> > > some bytes were written in copy_to_sk(), it always restarts from an
> > > earlier position, reattempting to write the same bytes. Since
> > > copy_to_sk() doesn't guarantee forward progress even if some bytes are
> > > writable, Linus' suggestion was for fault_in_writable() to probe the
> > > whole range. I consider this overkill since btrfs is the only one that
> > > needs probing every 16 bytes. The other cases like the new
> > > fault_in_safe_writeable() can be fixed by probing the first byte only
> > > followed by gup.
> >
> > Hmm. Direct I/O request sizes are multiples of the underlying device
> > block size, so we'll also get stuck there if fault-in won't give us a
> > full block. This is getting pretty ugly. So scratch that idea; let's
> > stick with probing the whole range.
>
> Ah, I wasn't aware of this. I got lost in the call trees but I noticed
> __iomap_dio_rw() does an iov_iter_revert() only if direction is READ. Is
> this the case for writes as well?

It's the EOF case, so it only applies to reads:

        /*
         * We only report that we've read data up to i_size.
         * Revert iter to a state corresponding to that as some callers (such
         * as the splice code) rely on it.
         */
        if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == READ && iomi.pos >= dio->i_size)
                iov_iter_revert(iter, iomi.pos - dio->i_size);

Andreas