Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: prevent copy_file_range to copy across devices

[gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:17:34AM +0000, Luis Henriques wrote:
> Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:57 PM Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 19:24 +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 6:53 PM Trond Myklebust <
> >> > trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 18:34 +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> >> > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 5:42 PM Luis Henriques <
> >> > > > lhenriques@xxxxxxx>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Nicolas Boichat reported an issue when trying to use the
> >> > > > > copy_file_range
> >> > > > > syscall on a tracefs file.  It failed silently because the file
> >> > > > > content is
> >> > > > > generated on-the-fly (reporting a size of zero) and
> >> > > > > copy_file_range
> >> > > > > needs
> >> > > > > to know in advance how much data is present.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > This commit restores the cross-fs restrictions that existed
> >> > > > > prior
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > 5dae222a5ff0 ("vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across
> >> > > > > devices")
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > removes generic_copy_file_range() calls from ceph, cifs, fuse,
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > nfs.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Fixes: 5dae222a5ff0 ("vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across
> >> > > > > devices")
> >> > > > > Link:
> >> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20210212044405.4120619-1-drinkcat@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >> > > > > Cc: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > > > Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@xxxxxxx>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Code looks ok.
> >> > > > You may add:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I agree with Trond that the first paragraph of the commit message
> >> > > > could
> >> > > > be improved.
> >> > > > The purpose of this change is to fix the change of behavior that
> >> > > > caused the regression.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Before v5.3, behavior was -EXDEV and userspace could fallback to
> >> > > > read.
> >> > > > After v5.3, behavior is zero size copy.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It does not matter so much what makes sense for CFR to do in this
> >> > > > case (generic cross-fs copy).  What matters is that nobody asked
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > this change and that it caused problems.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > No. I'm saying that this patch should be NACKed unless there is a
> >> > > real
> >> > > explanation for why we give crap about this tracefs corner case and
> >> > > why
> >> > > it can't be fixed.
> >> > >
> >> > > There are plenty of reasons why copy offload across filesystems
> >> > > makes
> >> > > sense, and particularly when you're doing NAS. Clone just doesn't
> >> > > cut
> >> > > it when it comes to disaster recovery (whereas backup to a
> >> > > different
> >> > > storage unit does). If the client has to do the copy, then you're
> >> > > effectively doubling the load on the server, and you're adding
> >> > > potentially unnecessary network traffic (or at the very least you
> >> > > are
> >> > > doubling that traffic).
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I don't understand the use case you are describing.
> >> >
> >> > Which filesystem types are you talking about for source and target
> >> > of copy_file_range()?
> >> >
> >> > To be clear, the original change was done to support NFS/CIFS server-
> >> > side
> >> > copy and those should not be affected by this change.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That is incorrect:
> >>
> >> ssize_t nfsd_copy_file_range(struct file *src, u64 src_pos, struct file
> >> *dst,
> >>  u64 dst_pos, u64 count)
> >> {
> >>
> >>  /*
> >>  * Limit copy to 4MB to prevent indefinitely blocking an nfsd
> >>  * thread and client rpc slot. The choice of 4MB is somewhat
> >>  * arbitrary. We might instead base this on r/wsize, or make it
> >>  * tunable, or use a time instead of a byte limit, or implement
> >>  * asynchronous copy. In theory a client could also recognize a
> >>  * limit like this and pipeline multiple COPY requests.
> >>  */
> >>  count = min_t(u64, count, 1 << 22);
> >>  return vfs_copy_file_range(src, src_pos, dst, dst_pos, count, 0);
> >> }
> >>
> >> You are now explicitly changing the behaviour of knfsd when the source
> >> and destination filesystem differ.
> >>
> >> For one thing, you are disallowing the NFSv4.2 copy offload use case of
> >> copying from a local filesystem to a remote NFS server. However you are
> >> also disallowing the copy from, say, an XFS formatted partition to an
> >> ext4 partition.
> >>
> >
> > Got it.
> 
> Ugh.  And I guess overlayfs may have a similar problem.
> 
> > This is easy to solve with a flag COPY_FILE_SPLICE (or something) that
> > is internal to kernel users.
> >
> > FWIW, you may want to look at the loop in ovl_copy_up_data()
> > for improvements to nfsd_copy_file_range().
> >
> > We can move the check out to copy_file_range syscall:
> >
> >         if (flags != 0)
> >                 return -EINVAL;
> >
> > Leave the fallback from all filesystems and check for the
> > COPY_FILE_SPLICE flag inside generic_copy_file_range().
> 
> Ok, the diff bellow is just to make sure I understood your suggestion.
> 
> The patch will also need to:
> 
>  - change nfs and overlayfs calls to vfs_copy_file_range() so that they
>    use the new flag.
> 
>  - check flags in generic_copy_file_checks() to make sure only valid flags
>    are used (COPY_FILE_SPLICE at the moment).
> 
> Also, where should this flag be defined?  include/uapi/linux/fs.h?

Why would userspace want/need this flag?