Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: change the way of handling range.len in F2FS_IOC_SEC_TRIM_FILE | From | Chao Yu <> | Date | Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:36:42 +0800 |
| |
On 2020/7/10 11:31, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2020/7/10 11:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> On 07/10, Daeho Jeong wrote: >>>> From: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com> >>>> >>>> Changed the way of handling range.len of F2FS_IOC_SEC_TRIM_FILE. >>>> 1. Added -1 value support for range.len to signify the end of file. >>>> 2. If the end of the range passes over the end of file, it means until >>>> the end of file. >>>> 3. ignored the case of that range.len is zero to prevent the function >>>> from making end_addr zero and triggering different behaviour of >>>> the function. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com> >>>> --- >>>> fs/f2fs/file.c | 16 +++++++--------- >>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c >>>> index 368c80f8e2a1..1c4601f99326 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c >>>> @@ -3813,21 +3813,19 @@ static int f2fs_sec_trim_file(struct file *filp, unsigned long arg) >>>> file_start_write(filp); >>>> inode_lock(inode); >>>> >>>> - if (f2fs_is_atomic_file(inode) || f2fs_compressed_file(inode)) { >>>> + if (f2fs_is_atomic_file(inode) || f2fs_compressed_file(inode) || >>>> + range.start >= inode->i_size) { >>>> ret = -EINVAL; >>>> goto err; >>>> } >>>> >>>> - if (range.start >= inode->i_size) { >>>> - ret = -EINVAL; >>>> + if (range.len == 0) >>>> goto err; >>>> - } >>>> >>>> - if (inode->i_size - range.start < range.len) { >>>> - ret = -E2BIG; >>>> - goto err; >>>> - } >>>> - end_addr = range.start + range.len; >>>> + if (range.len == (u64)-1 || inode->i_size - range.start < range.len) >>>> + end_addr = inode->i_size; >> >> We can remove 'range.len == (u64)-1' condition since later condition can cover >> this? >> >>> >>> Hmm, what if there are blocks beyond i_size? Do we need to check i_blocks for >> >> The blocks beyond i_size will never be written, there won't be any valid message >> there, so we don't need to worry about that. > > I don't think we have a way to guarantee the order of i_size and block > allocation in f2fs. See f2fs_write_begin and f2fs_write_end.
However, write_begin & write_end are covered by inode_lock, it could not be racy with inode size check in f2fs_sec_trim_file() as it hold inode_lock as well?
> >> >> Thanks, >> >>> ending criteria? >>> >>>> + else >>>> + end_addr = range.start + range.len; >>>> >>>> to_end = (end_addr == inode->i_size); >>>> if (!IS_ALIGNED(range.start, F2FS_BLKSIZE) || >>>> -- >>>> 2.27.0.383.g050319c2ae-goog >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list >>>> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list >>> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel >>> . >>> > . >
|  |