Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
From:   =?utf-8?Q?Lu=C3=ADs_Henriques?= <lhenriques@suse.de>
To:     Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ceph: invalidate pages when doing DIO in encrypted
 inodes
References: <20220401133243.1075-1-lhenriques@suse.de>
        <5146f7a8-94c1-a7aa-db2d-d3ae98c5b83a@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 06 Apr 2022 11:50:56 +0100
In-Reply-To: <5146f7a8-94c1-a7aa-db2d-d3ae98c5b83a@redhat.com> (Xiubo Li's
        message of "Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:24:33 +0800")
Message-ID: <87fsmqa3jj.fsf@brahms.olymp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com> writes:

> On 4/1/22 9:32 PM, Lu=C3=ADs Henriques wrote:
>> When doing DIO on an encrypted node, we need to invalidate the page cach=
e in
>> the range being written to, otherwise the cache will include invalid dat=
a.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lu=C3=ADs Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de>
>> ---
>>   fs/ceph/file.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> Changes since v1:
>> - Replaced truncate_inode_pages_range() by invalidate_inode_pages2_range
>> - Call fscache_invalidate with FSCACHE_INVAL_DIO_WRITE if we're doing DIO
>>
>> Note: I'm not really sure this last change is required, it doesn't really
>> affect generic/647 result, but seems to be the most correct.
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ceph/file.c b/fs/ceph/file.c
>> index 5072570c2203..b2743c342305 100644
>> --- a/fs/ceph/file.c
>> +++ b/fs/ceph/file.c
>> @@ -1605,7 +1605,7 @@ ceph_sync_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_ite=
r *from, loff_t pos,
>>   	if (ret < 0)
>>   		return ret;
>>   -	ceph_fscache_invalidate(inode, false);
>> +	ceph_fscache_invalidate(inode, (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DIRECT));
>>   	ret =3D invalidate_inode_pages2_range(inode->i_mapping,
>>   					    pos >> PAGE_SHIFT,
>>   					    (pos + count - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>> @@ -1895,6 +1895,15 @@ ceph_sync_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_it=
er *from, loff_t pos,
>>   		req->r_inode =3D inode;
>>   		req->r_mtime =3D mtime;
>>   +		if (IS_ENCRYPTED(inode) && (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DIRECT)) {
>> +			ret =3D invalidate_inode_pages2_range(
>> +				inode->i_mapping,
>> +				write_pos >> PAGE_SHIFT,
>> +				(write_pos + write_len - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>> +			if (ret < 0)
>> +				dout("invalidate_inode_pages2_range returned %d\n", ret);
>> +		}
>
> Shouldn't we fail it if the 'invalidate_inode_pages2_range()' fails here ?

Yeah, I'm not really sure.  I'm simply following the usual pattern where
an invalidate_inode_pages2_range() failure is logged and ignored.  And
this is not ceph-specific, other filesystems seem to do the same thing.

Cheers,
--=20
Lu=C3=ADs

>
> -- Xiubo
>
>> +
>>   		/* Set up the assertion */
>>   		if (rmw) {
>>   			/*
>>
>