Re: [PATCH -next] ext4: add an update to i_disksize in ext4_block_page_mkwrite

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon 01-09-25 15:01:45, Sun Yongjian wrote:
> 在 2025/7/31 22:05, sunyongjian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 写道:
> Gentle ping.
> > From: Yongjian Sun <sunyongjian1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > After running a stress test combined with fault injection,
> > we performed fsck -a followed by fsck -fn on the filesystem
> > image. During the second pass, fsck -fn reported:
> > 
> > Inode 131512, end of extent exceeds allowed value
> > 	(logical block 405, physical block 1180540, len 2)
> > 
> > This inode was not in the orphan list. Analysis revealed the
> > following call chain that leads to the inconsistency:
> > 
> >                               ext4_da_write_end()
> >                                //does not update i_disksize
> >                               ext4_punch_hole()
> >                                //truncate folio, keep size
> > ext4_page_mkwrite()
> >   ext4_block_page_mkwrite()
> >    ext4_block_write_begin()
> >      ext4_get_block()
> >       //insert written extent without update i_disksize
> > journal commit
> > echo 1 > /sys/block/xxx/device/delete
> > 
> > da-write path updates i_size but does not update i_disksize. Then
> > ext4_punch_hole truncates the da-folio yet still leaves i_disksize
> > unchanged. Then ext4_page_mkwrite sees ext4_nonda_switch return 1
> > and takes the nodioread_nolock path, the folio about to be written
> > has just been punched out, and it’s offset sits beyond the current
> > i_disksize. This may result in a written extent being inserted, but
> > again does not update i_disksize. If the journal gets committed and
> > then the block device is yanked, we might run into this.
> > 
> > To fix this, we now check in ext4_block_page_mkwrite whether
> > i_disksize needs to be updated to cover the newly allocated blocks.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yongjian Sun <sunyongjian1@xxxxxxxxxx>

OK, after the discussion with Ritesh your solution looks like the best one.
Just two nits below:

> > ---
> >   fs/ext4/inode.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > index ed54c4d0f2f9..050270b265ae 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > @@ -6666,8 +6666,18 @@ static int ext4_block_page_mkwrite(struct inode *inode, struct folio *folio,
> >   		goto out_error;
> >   	if (!ext4_should_journal_data(inode)) {
> > +		loff_t disksize = folio_pos(folio) + len;

Use an empty line between declarations and the code please.

> >   		block_commit_write(folio, 0, len);
> >   		folio_mark_dirty(folio);
> > +		if (disksize > READ_ONCE(EXT4_I(inode)->i_disksize)) {
> > +			down_write(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_data_sem);
> > +			if (disksize > EXT4_I(inode)->i_disksize)
> > +				EXT4_I(inode)->i_disksize = disksize;
> > +			up_write(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_data_sem);
> > +			ret = ext4_mark_inode_dirty(handle, inode);
> > +			if (ret)
> > +				goto out_error;
> > +		}

Since we don't support delalloc with data journalling, your code is correct
but I think it would be more understandable if you just moved the
i_disksize update outside of the "if (!ext4_should_journal_data(inode))"
condition.

> >   	} else {
> >   		ret = ext4_journal_folio_buffers(handle, folio, len);
> >   		if (ret)
> 

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR




[Index of Archives]     [Reiser Filesystem Development]     [Ceph FS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite National Park]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux