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;
Date:   Wed, 14 Jun 2023 02:13:38 +0530
Message-Id: <87legnw0sl.fsf@doe.com>
From:   Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>,
        Disha Goel <disgoel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 2/5] ext4: Remove PAGE_SIZE assumption of folio from mpage_submit_folio
In-Reply-To: <ZIjHQ5Nea7eRLjzF@casper.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 01:09:59AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
>> Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue 13-06-23 09:27:38, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
>> >> Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> writes:
>> >> > On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:55:55PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
>> >> >> Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> writes:
>> >> >> I couldn't respond to your change because I still had some confusion
>> >> >> around this suggestion -
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > So do we care if we write a random fragment of a page after a truncate?
>> >> >> > If so, we should add:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >         if (folio_pos(folio) >= size)
>> >> >> >                 return 0; /* Do we need to account nr_to_write? */
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I was not sure whether if go with above case then whether it will
>> >> >> work with collapse_range. I initially thought that collapse_range will
>> >> >> truncate the pages between start and end of the file and then
>> >> >> it can also reduce the inode->i_size. That means writeback can find an
>> >> >> inode->i_size smaller than folio_pos(folio) which it is writing to.
>> >> >> But in this case we can't skip the write in writeback case like above
>> >> >> because that write is still required (a spurious write) even though
>> >> >> i_size is reduced as it's corresponding FS blocks are not truncated.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But just now looking at ext4_collapse_range() code it doesn't look like
>> >> >> it is the problem because it waits for any dirty data to be written
>> >> >> before truncate. So no matter which folio_pos(folio) the writeback is
>> >> >> writing, there should not be an issue if we simply return 0 like how
>> >> >> you suggested above.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     static int ext4_collapse_range(struct file *file, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     <...>
>> >> >>         ioffset = round_down(offset, PAGE_SIZE);
>> >> >>         /*
>> >> >>         * Write tail of the last page before removed range since it will get
>> >> >>         * removed from the page cache below.
>> >> >>         */
>> >> >>
>> >> >>         ret = filemap_write_and_wait_range(mapping, ioffset, offset);
>> >> >>         if (ret)
>> >> >>             goto out_mmap;
>> >> >>         /*
>> >> >>         * Write data that will be shifted to preserve them when discarding
>> >> >>         * page cache below. We are also protected from pages becoming dirty
>> >> >>         * by i_rwsem and invalidate_lock.
>> >> >>         */
>> >> >>         ret = filemap_write_and_wait_range(mapping, offset + len,
>> >> >>                         LLONG_MAX);
>> >> >>         truncate_pagecache(inode, ioffset);
>> >> >>
>> >> >>         <... within i_data_sem>
>> >> >>         i_size_write(inode, new_size);
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     <...>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> However to avoid problems like this I felt, I will do some more code
>> >> >> reading. And then I was mostly considering your second suggestion which
>> >> >> is this. This will ensure we keep the current behavior as is and not
>> >> >> change that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > If we simply don't care that we're doing a spurious write, then we can
>> >> >> > do something like:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > -               len = size & ~PAGE_MASK;
>> >> >> > +               len = size & (len - 1);
>> >> >
>> >> > For all I know, I've found a bug here.  I don't know enough about ext4; if
>> >> > we have truncated a file, and then writeback a page that is past i_size,
>> >> > will the block its writing to have been freed?
>> >>
>> >> I don't think so. If we look at truncate code, it first reduces i_size,
>> >> then call truncate_pagecache(inode, newsize) and then we will call
>> >> ext4_truncate() which will free the corresponding blocks.
>> >> Since writeback happens with folio lock held until completion, hence I
>> >> think truncate_pagecache() should block on that folio until it's lock
>> >> has been released.
>> >>
>> >> - IIUC, if truncate would have completed then the folio won't be in the
>> >> foliocache for writeback to happen. Foliocache is kept consistent
>> >> via
>> >>     - first truncate the folio in the foliocache and then remove/free
>> >>     the blocks on device.
>> >
>> > Yes, correct.
>> >
>> >> - Also the reason we update i_size "before" calling truncate_pagecache()
>> >>   is to synchronize with mmap/pagefault.
>> >
>> > Yes, but these days mapping->invalidate_lock works for that instead for
>> > ext4.
>> >
>> >> > Is this potentially a silent data corruptor?
>> >>
>> >> - Let's consider a case when folio_pos > i_size but both still belongs
>> >> to the last block. i.e. it's a straddle write case.
>> >> In such case we require writeback to write the data of this last folio
>> >> straddling i_size. Because truncate will not remove/free this last folio
>> >> straddling i_size & neither the last block will be freed. And I think
>> >> writeback is supposed to write this last folio to the disk to keep the
>> >> cache and disk data consistent. Because truncate will only zero out
>> >> the rest of the folio in the foliocache. But I don't think it will go and
>> >> write that folio out (It's not required because i_size means that the
>> >> rest of the folio beyond i_size should remain zero).
>> >>
>> >> So, IMO writeback is supposed to write this last folio to the disk. And,
>> >> if we skip this writeout, then I think it may cause silent data corruption.
>> >>
>> >> But I am not sure about the rest of the write beyond the last block of
>> >> i_size. I think those could just be spurious writes which won't cause
>> >> any harm because truncate will eventually first remove this folio from
>> >> file mapping and then will release the corresponding disk blocks.
>> >> So writing those out should does no harm
>> >
>> > Correct. The block straddling i_size must be written out, the blocks fully
>> > beyond new i_size (but below old i_size) may or may not be written out. As
>> > you say these extra racing writes to blocks that will get truncated cause
>> > no harm.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks Jan for confirming. So, I think we should make below change.
>> (note the code which was doing "size - folio_pos(folio)" in
>> mpage_submit_folio() is dropped by Ted in the latest tree).
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
>> index 43be684dabcb..006eba9be5e6 100644
>> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
>> @@ -1859,9 +1859,9 @@ static int mpage_submit_folio(struct mpage_da_data *mpd, struct folio *folio)
>>          */
>>         size = i_size_read(mpd->inode);
>>         len = folio_size(folio);
>> -       if (folio_pos(folio) + len > size &&
>> +       if ((folio_pos(folio) >= size || (folio_pos(folio) + len > size)) &&
>>             !ext4_verity_in_progress(mpd->inode))
>> -               len = size & ~PAGE_MASK;
>> +               len = size & (len - 1);
>>         err = ext4_bio_write_folio(&mpd->io_submit, folio, len);
>>         if (!err)
>>                 mpd->wbc->nr_to_write--;
>> @@ -2329,9 +2329,9 @@ static int mpage_journal_page_buffers(handle_t *handle,
>>         folio_clear_checked(folio);
>>         mpd->wbc->nr_to_write--;
>>
>> -       if (folio_pos(folio) + len > size &&
>> +       if ((folio_pos(folio) >= size || (folio_pos(folio) + len > size)) &&
>>             !ext4_verity_in_progress(inode))
>> -               len = size - folio_pos(folio);
>> +               len = size & (len - 1);
>>
>>         return ext4_journal_folio_buffers(handle, folio, len);
>>  }
>>
>>
>> I will give it some more thoughts and testing.
>
> Why should ext4 be different from other filesystems which simply do:
>
> 	if (folio_pos(folio) >= size)
> 		return 0;

Yes, this case was bothering me and I was just thinking of this case. So,
since folio_pos(folio) starts at some pagesize boundary, then anyways
truncate will remove the entire page. So we need not bother about
writing this out.

Also should we just reduce nr_to_write because we could have written
that page-out but we know truncate is anyway going to remove it?

So the code should look like this then?

diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
index 43be684dabcb..976e84507236 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
@@ -1840,7 +1840,7 @@ static int mpage_submit_folio(struct mpage_da_data *mpd, struct folio *folio)
 {
        size_t len;
        loff_t size;
-       int err;
+       int err = 0;

        BUG_ON(folio->index != mpd->first_page);
        folio_clear_dirty_for_io(folio);
@@ -1859,10 +1859,19 @@ static int mpage_submit_folio(struct mpage_da_data *mpd, struct folio *folio)
         */
        size = i_size_read(mpd->inode);
        len = folio_size(folio);
+
+       /*
+        * Truncate should take care of truncating the entire folio anyways.
+        * So don't bother writing it out.
+        */
+       if (folio_pos(folio) >= size)
+               goto out;
+
        if (folio_pos(folio) + len > size &&
            !ext4_verity_in_progress(mpd->inode))
-               len = size & ~PAGE_MASK;
+               len = size & (len - 1);
        err = ext4_bio_write_folio(&mpd->io_submit, folio, len);
+out:
        if (!err)
                mpd->wbc->nr_to_write--;

@@ -2329,9 +2338,16 @@ static int mpage_journal_page_buffers(handle_t *handle,
        folio_clear_checked(folio);
        mpd->wbc->nr_to_write--;

+       /*
+        * Truncate should take care of truncating the entire folio anyways.
+        * So don't bother writing it out.
+        */
+       if (folio_pos(folio) >= size)
+               return 0;
+
        if (folio_pos(folio) + len > size &&
            !ext4_verity_in_progress(inode))
-               len = size - folio_pos(folio);
+               len = size & (len - 1);

        return ext4_journal_folio_buffers(handle, folio, len);
 }


I will have to read more on returning 0 from
mpage_journal_page_buffers() function to make sure we don't need any
special handling for folio in data=journal mode.

-ritesh