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;
Date:   Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:22:02 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     "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
Message-Id: <20230616162202.f46e1279d6b638406fd0eecd@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <702179.1686955382@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
References: <20230608175031.9c534e7f554de89e3d972ab2@linux-foundation.org>
        <20230607204120.89416-1-vishal.moola@gmail.com>
        <20230607204120.89416-2-vishal.moola@gmail.com>
        <702179.1686955382@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 23:43:02 +0100 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 

Well, what I'm really asking is the thing I ask seven times a day:

- what are the end-user visible effects of the bug

- should be fix be backported into earlier kernels