Ocfs2 devel - Oct 2018 - [PATCH v6 00/28] fs: fixes for serious clone/dedupe problems

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 01:21:12PM +1100, Dave Chinner
wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 09:15:03AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Dave, Eric, and I have been chasing a stale data exposure bug in the
XFS
> > reflink implementation, and tracked it down to reflink forgetting to
do
> > some of the file-extending activities that must happen for regular
> > writes.
> > 
> > We then started auditing the clone, dedupe, and copyfile code and
> > realized that from a file contents perspective, clonerange isn't
any
> > different from a regular file write.  Unfortunately, we also noticed
> > that *unlike* a regular write, clonerange skips a ton of overflow
> > checks, such as validating the ranges against s_maxbytes, MAX_NON_LFS,
> > and RLIMIT_FSIZE.  We also observed that cloning into a file did not
> > strip security privileges (suid, capabilities) like a regular write
> > would.  I also noticed that xfs and ocfs2 need to dump the page cache
> > before remapping blocks, not after.
> > 
> > In fixing the range checking problems I also realized that both dedupe
> > and copyfile tell userspace how much of the requested operation was
> > acted upon.  Since the range validation can shorten a clone request
(or
> > we can ENOSPC midway through), we might as well plumb the short
> > operation reporting back through the VFS indirection code to
userspace.
> > I added a few more cleanups to the xfs code per reviewer suggestions.
> > 
> > So, here's the whole giant pile of patches[1] that fix all the
problems.
> > This branch is against current upstream (4.19-rc8).  The patch
> > "generic: test reflink side effects" recently sent to
fstests exercises
> > the fixes in this series.  Tests are in [2].
> 
> Ok, so now that all the patches (other than the ocfs2 bits) have been
> reviewed, how do we want to merge this? I can take it through the
> XFS tree given that there is a bit of XFS changes that needs to be
> co-ordinated with it, or should it go through some other tree?
Ok, this is a bit of a mess. the patches do not merge cleanly to a
4.19-rc1 base kernel because of all the changes to
include/linux/fs.h that have hit the tree after this. There's also
failures against Documentation/filesystems/fs.h

IOWs, it's not going to get merged through the main XFS tree because
I don't have the patience to resolve all the patch application
failures, then when it comes to merge make sure all the merge
failures end up being resolved correctly.

So if I take it through the XFS tree, it will being a standalone
branch based on 4.19-rc8 and won't hit linux-next until after the
first XFS merge when I can rebase the for-next branch...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david at fromorbit.com

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 03:37:41PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Ok, this is a bit of a mess. the patches do not merge cleanly to a
> 4.19-rc1 base kernel because of all the changes to
> include/linux/fs.h that have hit the tree after this. There's also
> failures against Documentation/filesystems/fs.h
> 
> IOWs, it's not going to get merged through the main XFS tree because
> I don't have the patience to resolve all the patch application
> failures, then when it comes to merge make sure all the merge
> failures end up being resolved correctly.
> 
> So if I take it through the XFS tree, it will being a standalone
> branch based on 4.19-rc8 and won't hit linux-next until after the
> first XFS merge when I can rebase the for-next branch...
How many conflicts does it have with XFS tree?  I can take it via
vfs.git...