Message ID | 3fa83d6d472d78beb5fd519d0290b73d02d53d15.1733176045.git.wqu@suse.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show
Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17BD53D97A for <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:48:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733176101; cv=none; b=megTAhl7CQjUzdtGvxI/arHjorUN909ilOiBXUbuEx2qFXbx575jHaFf1jmZ7t5HRsTqchhrGn/m7EpbHeZWhn8n9ksSufsYazpQ434vQBH8voyG01eZFtL13OWf5SBwCkT1mluLa22nI0l3Uhsm/oFh+4LR2oDk7IufeCU6PqY= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733176101; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+KBTiu34U5er1+txZD9GUefXUyGiYmIJCVfagKKY23g=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=mYGwvQBgGBo/icFSzNxSsXh4wd5VXq9qw4o2qh5s6lW3x783u8azxytI0F1cwUjp7kfDvjuCycDiTrwqPQzMWofqorwywu4TybWMlmIOfh0jxiLlH+1/mMRo+5BDxxW9Vsltzc6JjJ1JWIo79EssGpkFc3QN1Oh5XI+WiZCjpSw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=Xr0HCV/h; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=Xr0HCV/h; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="Xr0HCV/h"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="Xr0HCV/h" Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 705092115F for <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:48:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1733176092; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc: mime-version:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kn5OTjhwaHH2MfXbaToYrGADONLht5Haky1C2vioLBA=; b=Xr0HCV/h135a3kwps7yNpiz7u9XFzWtgfp8Y5i+m1Y8XlHgJy25Al9YhCHj8O4tN2WMJAX xgmeM3PcXw7Butvz955O4202yjKlWRa8SBljqqIASVZPcX3H+lgugOGm6MLVIJu+nz4Zci TZ7eNYrZ9JavqlBMSTzeSXpzVIZbWx0= Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b="Xr0HCV/h" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1733176092; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc: mime-version:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kn5OTjhwaHH2MfXbaToYrGADONLht5Haky1C2vioLBA=; b=Xr0HCV/h135a3kwps7yNpiz7u9XFzWtgfp8Y5i+m1Y8XlHgJy25Al9YhCHj8O4tN2WMJAX xgmeM3PcXw7Butvz955O4202yjKlWRa8SBljqqIASVZPcX3H+lgugOGm6MLVIJu+nz4Zci TZ7eNYrZ9JavqlBMSTzeSXpzVIZbWx0= Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD8EA13A31 for <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:48:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id 9H3tGxsrTmewHAAAD6G6ig (envelope-from <wqu@suse.com>) for <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 02 Dec 2024 21:48:11 +0000 From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH v2] btrfs: properly wait for writeback before buffered write Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 08:17:53 +1030 Message-ID: <3fa83d6d472d78beb5fd519d0290b73d02d53d15.1733176045.git.wqu@suse.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.1 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:linux-btrfs+subscribe@vger.kernel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:linux-btrfs+unsubscribe@vger.kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 705092115F X-Spam-Score: -3.01 X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.01 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_CONTAINS_FROM(1.00)[]; R_MISSING_CHARSET(0.50)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.com:s=susede1]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.com:dkim,suse.com:mid,suse.com:email]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.com:s=susede1]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.com:+] X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd1.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Level: |
Series |
[v2] btrfs: properly wait for writeback before buffered write
|
expand
|
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c index fbb753300071..8734f5fc681f 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/file.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c @@ -911,6 +911,7 @@ static noinline int prepare_one_folio(struct inode *inode, struct folio **folio_ ret = PTR_ERR(folio); return ret; } + folio_wait_writeback(folio); /* Only support page sized folio yet. */ ASSERT(folio_order(folio) == 0); ret = set_folio_extent_mapped(folio);
[BUG] Before commit e820dbeb6ad1 ("btrfs: convert btrfs_buffered_write() to use folios"), function prepare_one_folio() will always wait for folio writeback to finish before returning the folio. However commit e820dbeb6ad1 ("btrfs: convert btrfs_buffered_write() to use folios") changed to use FGP_STABLE to do the writeback wait, but FGP_STABLE is calling folio_wait_stable(), which only calls folio_wait_writeback() if the address space has AS_STABLE_WRITES, which is not set for btrfs inodes. This means we will not wait for folio writeback at all. [CAUSE] The cause is FGP_STABLE is not wait for writeback unconditionally, but only for address spaces with AS_STABLE_WRITES, normally such flag is set when the super block has SB_I_STABLE_WRITES flag. Such super block flag is set when the block device has hardware digest support or has internal checksum requirement. I'd argue btrfs should set such super block due to its default data checksum behavior, but it is not set yet, so this means FGP_STABLE flag will have no effect at all. (For NODATACSUM inodes, we can skip the wait in theory but that should be an optimization in the future) This can lead to data checksum mismatch, as we can modify the folio meanwhile it's still under writeback, this will make the contents differ from the contents at submission and checksum calculation. [FIX] Instead of fully rely on FGP_STABLE, manually do the folio writeback wait, until we set the address space or super flag. Fixes: e820dbeb6ad1 ("btrfs: convert btrfs_buffered_write() to use folios") Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> --- v2: - Update the commit message and fixes by tag I was too focused on the syzbot report, not noticing it's a different commit causing the regression. Now removed the syzbot report part. --- fs/btrfs/file.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)