Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs+bounces-899-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 04:42:24 +0900
From: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
	Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>,
	Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>,
	Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>,
	Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>,
	Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>,
	Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>, linux-cachefs@redhat.com,
	linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org,
	v9fs@lists.linux.dev, linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>,
	Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] 9p: Always update remote_i_size in stat2inode
Message-ID: <ZZW4oEuzCx-7AYpo@codewreck.org>
References: <20240103145935.384404-1-dhowells@redhat.com>
 <20240103145935.384404-5-dhowells@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240103145935.384404-5-dhowells@redhat.com>

David Howells wrote on Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 02:59:28PM +0000:
> Always update remote_i_size in v9fs_stat2inode*() if the size is available,
> even if we are asked not to update i_isize

Sorry -- hold on for this patch, let's drop it for now and take it more
slowly through next cycle.

I had mostly forgotten about V9FS_STAT2INODE_KEEP_ISIZE and not paying
enough attention yesterday evening, but it's not innocent -- I assume
netfs will do the right thing if we update the *remote* i_size when
there is cached data, but the inode's i_size cannot be updated as
easily.

It's hard to notice because the comment got split in 5e3cc1ee1405a7
("9p: use inode->i_lock to protect i_size_write() under 32-bit"), but
v9fs_refresh_inode* still have it:
        /*      
         * We don't want to refresh inode->i_size,
         * because we may have cached data
         */

I assume refreshing i_size at a bad time would act like a truncation
of cached memory.

(To answer the other thread's comment that v9fs_i_size_write is useless;
it's far from obvious enough but I'm afraid it is needed:
- include/linux/fs.h has a comment saying i_size_write does need locking
around it for 32bit to avoid breaking i_size_seqcount; that's still true
in today's tree.
- we could use any lock as long as it's coherent within the 9p
subsystem, but we don't need a whole mutex so i_lock it is.)
-- 
Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus