Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: dio take shared inode lock when overwriting
 preallocated blocks
To:     Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc:     linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
        yukuai3@huawei.com, ritesh.list@gmail.com
References: <20221203103956.3691847-1-yi.zhang@huawei.com>
 <20221214170125.bixz46ybm76rtbzf@quack3> <Y5obcGLDZuw/NWOh@mit.edu>
 <442e060a-de74-1e54-4fa3-5e4d35597dbe@huawei.com>
From:   Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com>
Message-ID: <e749fce4-4bd8-7807-aa32-1caef2509382@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2022 16:49:52 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <442e060a-de74-1e54-4fa3-5e4d35597dbe@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2022/12/15 16:41, Zhang Yi wrote:
> On 2022/12/15 2:52, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 06:01:25PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>
>>> Besides some naming nits (see below) I think this should work. But I have
>>> to say I'm a bit uneasy about this because we will now be changing block
>>> mapping from unwritten to written only with shared i_rwsem. OTOH that
>>> happens during writeback as well so we should be fine and the gain is very
>>> nice.
>>
>> Hmm.... when I was looking potential impacts of the change what
>> ext4_overwrite_io() would do, I looked at the current user of that
>> function in ext4_dio_write_checks().
>>
>> 	/*
>> 	 * Determine whether the IO operation will overwrite allocated
>> 	 * and initialized blocks.
>> 	 * We need exclusive i_rwsem for changing security info
>> 	 * in file_modified().
>> 	 */
>> 	if (*ilock_shared && (!IS_NOSEC(inode) || *extend ||
>> 	     !ext4_overwrite_io(inode, offset, count))) {
>> 		if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT) {
>> 			ret = -EAGAIN;
>> 			goto out;
>> 		}
>> 		inode_unlock_shared(inode);
>> 		*ilock_shared = false;
>> 		inode_lock(inode);
>> 		goto restart;
>> 	}
>>
>> 	ret = file_modified(file);
>> 	if (ret < 0)
>> 		goto out;
>>
>> What is confusing me is the comment, "We need exclusive i_rwsem for
>> changing security info in file_modified().".  But then we end up
>> calling file_modified() unconditionally, regardless of whether we've
>> transitioned from a shared lock to an exclusive lock.
>>
>> So file_modified() can get called either with or without the inode
>> locked r/w.  I realize that this patch doesn't change this
>> inconsistency, but it appears either the comment is wrong, or the code
>> is wrong.
>>
>> What am I missing?
>>
> 
> IIUC, both of the comment and the code are correct, the __file_remove_privs()
> in file_modified() should execute under exclusive lock, and we have already
> check the IS_NOSEC(inode) and could make sure taking exclusive lock before we
> remove privs. If we take share lock, __file_remove_privs() will return directly
> because below check. So it's find now, but it looks that call file_update_time()
> is enough for the shared lock case.
> 
> int file_update_time(struct file *file)
static int __file_remove_privs(struct file *file, unsigned int flags)
> {
...
> 	if (IS_NOSEC(inode) || !S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
> 		return 0;
> ...
> }
> 
> Thanks,
> Yi.
>