From: Daeho Jeong <daeho43@gmail.com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, kernel-team@android.com,
Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: add F2FS_IOC_SET_COMPRESS_OPTION ioctl
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:27:30 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACOAw_y31yAu=AGAEqvyo2Ankt-ux80E6g6m_sWnz6LyUgBXSg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201013061150.GC1062@sol.localdomain>
> f2fs_readonly() is redundant with mnt_want_write_file().
>
> Also, shouldn't this require a writable file descriptor? As-is, this ioctl can
> be called on a file owned by another user, as long as the caller has read
> access.
>
> Note: if you change this to require a writable file descriptor, then
> f2fs_readonly(), mnt_want_write_file(), and IS_IMMUTABLE() all would no longer
> be needed.
I agree that f2fs_readonly() is redundant.
But, sorry, I don't get the rest. I thought mnt_want_write_file() is a
way to check whether the caller has a proper write permission or not.
I think just using mnt_want_write_file() is enough for this ioctl. Am
I missing something?
> What if f2fs_cops[options.algorithm] == NULL, e.g. COMPRESS_LZ4 without
> CONFIG_F2FS_FS_LZ4? Shouldn't the caller get an error then?
Good point!
> I don't think the check for i_writecount == 1 accomplishes anything because it
> just means there are no *other* writable file descriptors. It doesn't mean that
> some other thread isn't concurrently trying to write to this same file
> descriptor. So the lock needs to be enough. Is it?
This is to detect any possibility of other threads mmap-ing and
writing the file.
Using only inode lock is not enough to prevent them from making dirty pages.
2020년 10월 13일 (화) 오후 3:11, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>님이 작성:
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:24:29AM +0900, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> > +static int f2fs_ioc_set_compress_option(struct file *filp, unsigned long arg)
> > +{
> > + struct inode *inode = file_inode(filp);
> > + struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(inode);
> > + struct f2fs_comp_option option;
> > + int ret;
> > + int writecount;
> > +
> > + if (!f2fs_sb_has_compression(sbi))
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> > + if (!f2fs_compressed_file(inode) || IS_IMMUTABLE(inode))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (f2fs_readonly(sbi->sb))
> > + return -EROFS;
>
>
> > +
> > + if (copy_from_user(&option, (struct f2fs_comp_option __user *)arg,
> > + sizeof(option)))
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > +
> > + if (option.log_cluster_size < MIN_COMPRESS_LOG_SIZE ||
> > + option.log_cluster_size > MAX_COMPRESS_LOG_SIZE ||
> > + option.algorithm >= COMPRESS_MAX)
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> What if f2fs_cops[options.algorithm] == NULL, e.g. COMPRESS_LZ4 without
> CONFIG_F2FS_FS_LZ4? Shouldn't the caller get an error then?
>
> > +
> > + ret = mnt_want_write_file(filp);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + inode_lock(inode);
> > +
> > + writecount = atomic_read(&inode->i_writecount);
> > + if ((filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE && writecount != 1) ||
> > + (!(filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE) && writecount)) {
> > + ret = -EBUSY;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
>
> I don't think the check for i_writecount == 1 accomplishes anything because it
> just means there are no *other* writable file descriptors. It doesn't mean that
> some other thread isn't concurrently trying to write to this same file
> descriptor. So the lock needs to be enough. Is it?
>
> - Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-14 9:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-13 2:24 [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: add F2FS_IOC_GET_COMPRESS_OPTION ioctl Daeho Jeong
2020-10-13 2:24 ` [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: add F2FS_IOC_SET_COMPRESS_OPTION ioctl Daeho Jeong
2020-10-13 6:11 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2020-10-14 2:27 ` Daeho Jeong [this message]
2020-10-15 4:04 ` Eric Biggers
2020-10-16 2:24 ` Daeho Jeong
2020-10-13 2:27 ` [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: add F2FS_IOC_GET_COMPRESS_OPTION ioctl Randy Dunlap
2020-10-13 6:13 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2020-10-14 1:39 ` Daeho Jeong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CACOAw_y31yAu=AGAEqvyo2Ankt-ux80E6g6m_sWnz6LyUgBXSg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=daeho43@gmail.com \
--cc=daehojeong@google.com \
--cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).