From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38379 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752925AbeEKK1i (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 May 2018 06:27:38 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 12:24:59 +0200 From: David Sterba To: Nikolay Borisov Cc: Omar Sandoval , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Btrfs: stop abusing current->journal_info for direct I/O Message-ID: <20180511102459.GT6649@twin.jikos.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz References: <16e0b655-3778-990d-2cb9-abf34ea9e3ad@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16e0b655-3778-990d-2cb9-abf34ea9e3ad@suse.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:53:36PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > > On 11.05.2018 09:30, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > From: Omar Sandoval > > > > Hi, everyone, > > > > Btrfs currently abuses current->journal_info in btrfs_direct_IO() in > > order to pass around some state to get_block() and submit_io(). This > > hack is ugly and unnecessary because the data we pass around is only > > used in one call frame. Robbie Ko also pointed out [1] that it could > > potentially cause a crash if we happen to end up in start_transaction() > > (e.g., from memory reclaim calling into btrfs_evict_inode(), which can > > start a transaction). I'm not convinced that Robbie's case can happen in > > practice since we are using GFP_NOFS for allocations during direct I/O, > > but either way it's fragile and nasty. > > When I worked initially on btrfs-over-swap I managed to hit a case where > ext4 stacked on top of btrfs would crash since btrfs will overwrite > journal_info which was set by ext4. So this change is indeed welcome :) And also this, https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/14/165.