Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ceph: invalidate pages when doing DIO in encrypted
 inodes
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Lu=c3=ads_Henriques?= <lhenriques@suse.de>
Cc:     Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220401133243.1075-1-lhenriques@suse.de>
 <d6407dd1-b6df-4de4-fe37-71b765b2088a@redhat.com>
 <878rsia391.fsf@brahms.olymp>
 <6ba91390-83e8-8702-2729-dc432abd3cc5@redhat.com>
 <87zgky8n0o.fsf@brahms.olymp>
 <6306fba71325483a1ea22fa73250c8777ea647d7.camel@kernel.org>
From:   Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <321104e6-36db-c143-a7ba-58f9199e6fb7@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Apr 2022 21:10:08 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6306fba71325483a1ea22fa73250c8777ea647d7.camel@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk


On 4/6/22 7:48 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-04-06 at 12:33 +0100, Lu?s Henriques wrote:
>> Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/6/22 6:57 PM, Lu?s Henriques wrote:
>>>> Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/1/22 9:32 PM, Lu?s Henriques wrote:
>>>>>> When doing DIO on an encrypted node, we need to invalidate the page cache in
>>>>>> the range being written to, otherwise the cache will include invalid data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lu?s 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_iter *from, loff_t pos,
>>>>>>     	if (ret < 0)
>>>>>>     		return ret;
>>>>>>     -	ceph_fscache_invalidate(inode, false);
>>>>>> +	ceph_fscache_invalidate(inode, (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DIRECT));
>>>>>>     	ret = invalidate_inode_pages2_range(inode->i_mapping,
>>>>>>     					    pos >> PAGE_SHIFT,
>>>>>>     					    (pos + count - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>>>>> The above has already invalidated the pages, why doesn't it work ?
>>>> I suspect the reason is because later on we loop through the number of
>>>> pages, call copy_page_from_iter() and then ceph_fscrypt_encrypt_pages().
>>> Checked the 'copy_page_from_iter()', it will do the kmap for the pages but will
>>> kunmap them again later. And they shouldn't update the i_mapping if I didn't
>>> miss something important.
>>>
>>> For 'ceph_fscrypt_encrypt_pages()' it will encrypt/dencrypt the context inplace,
>>> IMO if it needs to map the page and it should also unmap it just like in
>>> 'copy_page_from_iter()'.
>>>
>>> I thought it possibly be when we need to do RMW, it may will update the
>>> i_mapping when reading contents, but I checked the code didn't find any
>>> place is doing this. So I am wondering where tha page caches come from ? If that
>>> page caches really from reading the contents, then we should discard it instead
>>> of flushing it back ?
>>>
>>> BTW, what's the problem without this fixing ? xfstest fails ?
>> Yes, generic/647 fails if you run it with test_dummy_encryption.  And I've
>> also checked that the RMW code was never executed in this test.
>>
>> But yeah I have assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the kmap/kunmap could
>> change the inode->i_mapping.
>>
> No, kmap/unmap are all about high memory and 32-bit architectures. Those
> functions are usually no-ops on 64-bit arches.

Yeah, right.

So they do nothing here.

>> In my debugging this seemed to be the case
>> for the O_DIRECT path.  That's why I added this extra call here.
>>
> I agree with Xiubo that we really shouldn't need to invalidate multiple
> times.
>
> I guess in this test, we have a DIO write racing with an mmap read
> Probably what's happening is either that we can't invalidate the page
> because it needs to be cleaned, or the mmap read is racing in just after
> the invalidate occurs but before writeback.

This sounds a possible case.


> In any case, it might be interesting to see whether you're getting
> -EBUSY back from the new invalidate_inode_pages2 calls with your patch.
>
If it's really this case maybe this should be retried some where ?

-- Xiubo