Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 13 May 2021 20:38:47 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@wdc.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jth@kernel.org>,
        linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
        Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>, Ted Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] mm: Protect operations adding pages to page cache
 with invalidate_lock
Message-ID: <YJ2AR0IURFzz+52G@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20210512101639.22278-1-jack@suse.cz>
 <20210512134631.4053-3-jack@suse.cz>
 <YJvo1bGG1tG+gtgC@casper.infradead.org>
 <20210513190114.GJ2734@quack2.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210513190114.GJ2734@quack2.suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 09:01:14PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 12-05-21 15:40:21, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Remind me (or, rather, add to the documentation) why we have to hold the
> > invalidate_lock during the call to readpage / readahead, and we don't just
> > hold it around the call to add_to_page_cache / add_to_page_cache_locked
> > / add_to_page_cache_lru ?  I appreciate that ->readpages is still going
> > to suck, but we're down to just three implementations of ->readpages now
> > (9p, cifs & nfs).
> 
> There's a comment in filemap_create_page() trying to explain this. We need
> to protect against cases like: Filesystem with 1k blocksize, file F has
> page at index 0 with uptodate buffer at 0-1k, rest not uptodate. All blocks
> underlying page are allocated. Now let read at offset 1k race with hole
> punch at offset 1k, length 1k.
> 
> read()					hole punch
> ...
>   filemap_read()
>     filemap_get_pages()
>       - page found in the page cache but !Uptodate
>       filemap_update_page()
> 					  locks everything
> 					  truncate_inode_pages_range()
> 					    lock_page(page)
> 					    do_invalidatepage()
> 					    unlock_page(page)
>         locks page
>           filemap_read_page()

Ah, this is the partial_start case, which means that page->mapping
is still valid.  But that means that do_invalidatepage() was called
with (offset 1024, length 1024), immediately after we called
zero_user_segment().  So isn't this a bug in the fs do_invalidatepage()?
The range from 1k-2k _is_ uptodate.  It's been zeroed in memory,
and if we were to run after the "free block" below, we'd get that
memory zeroed again.

>             ->readpage()
>               block underlying offset 1k
> 	      still allocated -> map buffer
> 					  free block under offset 1k
> 	      submit IO -> corrupted data
> 
> If you think I should expand it to explain more details, please tell.
> Or maybe I can put more detailed discussion like above into the changelog?

> > Why not:
> > 
> > 	__init_rwsem(&mapping->invalidate_lock, "mapping.invalidate_lock",
> > 			&sb->s_type->invalidate_lock_key);
> 
> I replicated what we do for i_rwsem but you're right, this is better.
> Updated.

Hmm, there's a few places we should use __init_rwsem() ... something
for my "when bored" pile of work.