Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230608175031.9c534e7f554de89e3d972ab2@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20230608175031.9c534e7f554de89e3d972ab2@linux-foundation.org> <20230607204120.89416-1-vishal.moola@gmail.com> <20230607204120.89416-2-vishal.moola@gmail.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com,
        "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@gmail.com>,
        linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] afs: Fix waiting for writeback then skipping folio
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <702178.1686955382.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 16 Jun 2023 23:43:02 +0100
Message-ID: <702179.1686955382@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > Commit acc8d8588cb7 converted afs_writepages_region() to write back a
> > folio batch. The function waits for writeback to a folio, but then
> > proceeds to the rest of the batch without trying to write that folio
> > again. This patch fixes has it attempt to write the folio again.
> > 
> > This has only been compile tested.
> 
> This seems fairly serious?

We will try to write the again later, but sync()/fsync() might now have
skipped it.

> From my reading, we'll fail to write out the dirty data.  Presumably
> not easily observable, as it will get written out again later on.

As it's a network filesystem, interactions with third parties could cause
apparent corruption.  Closing a file will flush it - but if there's a
simultaneous op of some other kind, a bit of a flush or a sync may get missed
and the copy visible to another user be temporarily missing that bit.

> But we're also calling afs_write_back_from_locked_folio() with an unlocked
> folio, which might cause mayhem.

Without this patch, you mean?  There's a "continue" statement that should send
us back to the top of the loop before we get as far as
afs_write_back_from_locked_folio() - and then the folio_unlock() there would
go bang.

David