Date:   Fri, 7 Jan 2022 18:21:26 -0800
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] f2fs: do not expose unwritten blocks to user by DIO
Message-ID: <Ydj1JvEeLo1mrqvb@sol.localdomain>
References: <20220104212419.1879225-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org>
 <20220104212419.1879225-3-jaegeuk@kernel.org>
 <YdjJAS7Ua4aJEFhz@sol.localdomain>
 <YdjucBBopEDuUb5b@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YdjucBBopEDuUb5b@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 05:52:48PM -0800, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 01/07, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > Hi Jaegeuk,
> > 
> > On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 01:24:16PM -0800, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > DIO preallocates physical blocks before writing data, but if an error occurrs
> > > or power-cut happens, we can see block contents from the disk. This patch tries
> > > to fix it by 1) turning to buffered writes for DIO into holes, 2) truncating
> > > unwritten blocks from error or power-cut.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/f2fs/data.c  |  5 ++++-
> > >  fs/f2fs/f2fs.h  |  5 +++++
> > >  fs/f2fs/file.c  | 27 ++++++++++++++++++---------
> > >  fs/f2fs/inode.c |  8 ++++++++
> > >  4 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Unfortunately, this patch doesn't completely fix the uninitialized data
> > exposure.  The problem is that it only makes DIO writes fall back to buffered
> > writes for holes, and not for reserved blocks (NEW_ADDR).  f2fs's reserved
> > blocks are *not* the same as the unwritten extents that other filesystems have;
> > f2fs's reserved blocks have to be turned into regular blocks before DIO can
> > write to them.  That immediately exposes them to concurrent reads (at least
> > buffered reads, but I think DIO reads too).
> 
> Isn't it resolved by i_size which gives the written blocks only?
> 

I'm not sure what you mean, but this is for non-extending writes, so i_size
isn't relevant.

- Eric