| Message ID | 07c41ba8-ecb7-5042-fa6c-dd8c9754b824@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | xfs: fix up some reflink+dax interactions | expand |
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 01:20:55PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Today, xfs_reflink_remap_prep() will reject inodes which are in the CPU > direct access state, i.e. IS_DAX() is true. However, it is possible to > have inodes with the XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX set, but which are not activated as > dax, due to the dax=never mount option, or due to the flag being set after > the inode was loaded. > > To avoid confusion and make the lack of dax+reflink crystal clear for the > user, reject reflink requests for both IS_DAX and XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX inodes. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> > --- > > This is RFC because as Darrick says, it introduces a new failure mode for > reflink. On the flip side, today the user can reflink a chattr +x'd file, > but cannot chattr +x a reflinked file, which seems a best a bit asymmetrical > and confusing... see xfs_ioctl_setattr_xflags() This seems confusing. IMHO for now we should just for non-dax access to any reflink file even if XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX is set. The only place where we cannot do that is if a file has XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX set and is in use and we want to reflink it. Note that "in use" is kinda murky and potentially racy. So IMHO not allowing reflink when XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX is set and dax=never is not set makes sense, but we should not go further.
On 12/2/20 4:22 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 01:20:55PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Today, xfs_reflink_remap_prep() will reject inodes which are in the CPU >> direct access state, i.e. IS_DAX() is true. However, it is possible to >> have inodes with the XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX set, but which are not activated as >> dax, due to the dax=never mount option, or due to the flag being set after >> the inode was loaded. >> >> To avoid confusion and make the lack of dax+reflink crystal clear for the >> user, reject reflink requests for both IS_DAX and XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX inodes. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> >> --- >> >> This is RFC because as Darrick says, it introduces a new failure mode for >> reflink. On the flip side, today the user can reflink a chattr +x'd file, >> but cannot chattr +x a reflinked file, which seems a best a bit asymmetrical >> and confusing... see xfs_ioctl_setattr_xflags() > > This seems confusing. IMHO for now we should just for non-dax access > to any reflink file even if XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX is set. The only place > where we cannot do that is if a file has XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX set and is in > use and we want to reflink it. Note that "in use" is kinda murky and > potentially racy. So IMHO not allowing reflink when XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX > is set and dax=never is not set makes sense, but we should not go > further. Hm, trying to parse that... Would it be correct to restate your last sentence as "Disallowing reflink when XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX is set and dax=inode is set makes sense?" If so, then the only change you're suggesting to this patch is to /allow/ reflinking if dax=never is set? I just figured a very clear statementa bout incompatible flags was simplest, but I get it that it's overly restrictive, functionally. Thanks, -Eric
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:44:24AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Would it be correct to restate your last sentence as "Disallowing reflink > when XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX is set and dax=inode is set makes sense?" > > If so, then the only change you're suggesting to this patch is to /allow/ > reflinking if dax=never is set? Yes, I think we should. > I just figured a very clear statementa bout incompatible flags was simplest, > but I get it that it's overly restrictive, functionally. The simplest in terms of semantics is to make sure reflink+DAX works, and while we are on the way we'll still need a workaround until that happen.
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 05:15:30PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:44:24AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > Would it be correct to restate your last sentence as "Disallowing reflink > > when XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX is set and dax=inode is set makes sense?" > > > > If so, then the only change you're suggesting to this patch is to /allow/ > > reflinking if dax=never is set? > > Yes, I think we should. > > > I just figured a very clear statementa bout incompatible flags was simplest, > > but I get it that it's overly restrictive, functionally. > > The simplest in terms of semantics is to make sure reflink+DAX works, > and while we are on the way we'll still need a workaround until that > happen. happens.
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c index 6fa05fb78189..b69dbb992b0c 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c @@ -1308,6 +1308,11 @@ xfs_reflink_remap_prep( if (IS_DAX(inode_in) || IS_DAX(inode_out)) goto out_unlock; + /* Until we have dax+reflink don't even allow the flags to co-exist */ + if (src->i_d.di_flags2 & XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX || + dest->i_d.di_flags2 & XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX) + goto out_unlock; + ret = generic_remap_file_range_prep(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out, len, remap_flags); if (ret || *len == 0)
Today, xfs_reflink_remap_prep() will reject inodes which are in the CPU direct access state, i.e. IS_DAX() is true. However, it is possible to have inodes with the XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX set, but which are not activated as dax, due to the dax=never mount option, or due to the flag being set after the inode was loaded. To avoid confusion and make the lack of dax+reflink crystal clear for the user, reject reflink requests for both IS_DAX and XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX inodes. Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> --- This is RFC because as Darrick says, it introduces a new failure mode for reflink. On the flip side, today the user can reflink a chattr +x'd file, but cannot chattr +x a reflinked file, which seems a best a bit asymmetrical and confusing... see xfs_ioctl_setattr_xflags() fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)