linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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] f2fs: add F2FS_IOC_SEC_TRIM_FILE ioctl
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:31:20 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACOAw_zka6d06RxFOUTwEV7B6o8A2-_6FvqWh_A1nJ0+7FU9yQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACOAw_wErOPC=Kf3UU8nFGhWRy84ZnCeJbsyPhSCcXv51B_XxQ@mail.gmail.com>

> > > > > +
> > > > > +     if (f2fs_readonly(sbi->sb))
> > > > > +             return -EROFS;
> > > >
> > > > Isn't this redundant with mnt_want_write_file()?
> > > >
> > > > Also, shouldn't write access to the file be required, i.e.
> > > > (filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE)?  Then the f2fs_readonly() and
> > > > mnt_want_write_file() checks would be unnecessary.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Using FMODE_WRITE is more proper for this case, since we're going to
> > > modify the data. But I think mnt_want_write_file() is still required
> > > to prevent the filesystem from freezing or something else.
> >
> > Right, the freezing check is actually still necessary.  But getting write access
> > to the mount is not necessary.  I think you should use file_start_write() and
> > file_end_write(), like vfs_write() does.

I've checked this again.

But I think mnt_want_write_file() looks better than the combination of
checking FMODE_WRITE and file_start_write(), because
mnt_want_write_file() handles all the things we need.
It checks FMODE_WRITER, which is set in do_dentry_open() when
FMODE_WRITE is already set, and does the stuff that file_start_write()
is doing. This is why the other filesystem system calls use it.

What do you think?

2020년 6월 10일 (수) 오후 12:55, Daeho Jeong <daeho43@gmail.com>님이 작성:
>
> > >
> > > To prevent the file data from garbage collecting, the user needs to
> > > use pinfile ioctl and fallocate system call after creating the file.
> > > The sequence is like below.
> > > 1. create an empty file
> > > 2. pinfile
> > > 3. fallocate()
> >
> > Is that persistent?  So the file will never be moved afterwards?
> >
> > Is there a place where this is (or should be) documented?
>
> Yes, this is persistent. F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE ioctl is to prevent
> file data from moving and being garbage collected, and further update
> to the file will be handled in in-place update manner.
> I don't see any document on this, but you can find the below in
> Documentation/filesystems/f2fs.rst
>
> However, once F2FS receives ioctl(fd, F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE) in prior to
> fallocate(fd, DEFAULT_MODE), it allocates on-disk blocks addresses having
> zero or random data, which is useful to the below scenario where:
>
>  1. create(fd)
>  2. ioctl(fd, F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE)
>  3. fallocate(fd, 0, 0, size)
>  4. address = fibmap(fd, offset)
>  5. open(blkdev)
>  6. write(blkdev, address)
>
> > Right, the freezing check is actually still necessary.  But getting write access
> > to the mount is not necessary.  I think you should use file_start_write() and
> > file_end_write(), like vfs_write() does.
>
> Yes, agreed.
>
> 2020년 6월 10일 (수) 오후 12:15, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>님이 작성:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:05:46AM +0900, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> > > > > Added a new ioctl to send discard commands or/and zero out
> > > > > to whole data area of a regular file for security reason.
> > > >
> > > > With this ioctl available, what is the exact procedure to write and then later
> > > > securely erase a file on f2fs?  In particular, how can the user prevent f2fs
> > > > from making multiple copies of file data blocks as part of garbage collection?
> > > >
> > >
> > > To prevent the file data from garbage collecting, the user needs to
> > > use pinfile ioctl and fallocate system call after creating the file.
> > > The sequence is like below.
> > > 1. create an empty file
> > > 2. pinfile
> > > 3. fallocate()
> >
> > Is that persistent?  So the file will never be moved afterwards?
> >
> > Is there a place where this is (or should be) documented?
> >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     if (f2fs_readonly(sbi->sb))
> > > > > +             return -EROFS;
> > > >
> > > > Isn't this redundant with mnt_want_write_file()?
> > > >
> > > > Also, shouldn't write access to the file be required, i.e.
> > > > (filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE)?  Then the f2fs_readonly() and
> > > > mnt_want_write_file() checks would be unnecessary.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Using FMODE_WRITE is more proper for this case, since we're going to
> > > modify the data. But I think mnt_want_write_file() is still required
> > > to prevent the filesystem from freezing or something else.
> >
> > Right, the freezing check is actually still necessary.  But getting write access
> > to the mount is not necessary.  I think you should use file_start_write() and
> > file_end_write(), like vfs_write() does.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     if (get_user(flags, (u32 __user *)arg))
> > > > > +             return -EFAULT;
> > > > > +     if (!(flags & F2FS_TRIM_FILE_MASK))
> > > > > +             return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > > Need to reject unknown flags:
> > > >
> > > >         if (flags & ~F2FS_TRIM_FILE_MASK)
> > > >                 return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > I needed a different thing here. This was to check neither discard nor
> > > zeroing out are not here. But we still need to check unknown flags,
> > > too.
> > > The below might be better.
> > > if (!flags || flags & ~F2FS_TRIM_FILE_MASK)
> > >        return -EINVAL;
> >
> > Sure, but please put parentheses around the second clause:
> >
> >         if (flags == 0 || (flags & ~F2FS_TRIM_FILE_MASK))
> >                 return -EINVAL;
> >
> > - Eric

  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-10 23:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-09  6:01 [PATCH] f2fs: add F2FS_IOC_SEC_TRIM_FILE ioctl Daeho Jeong
2020-06-09 16:51 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2020-06-10  2:05   ` Daeho Jeong
2020-06-10  3:15     ` Eric Biggers
2020-06-10  3:55       ` Daeho Jeong
2020-06-10 23:31         ` Daeho Jeong [this message]
2020-06-10 23:53           ` Daeho Jeong
2020-06-11  0:00             ` Eric Biggers
2020-06-11  0:23               ` Daeho Jeong
2020-06-11  1:56                 ` Eric Biggers
2020-06-11  2:05                   ` 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_zka6d06RxFOUTwEV7B6o8A2-_6FvqWh_A1nJ0+7FU9yQ@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).