Re: [GIT PULL] gfs2 fixes for v5.13-rc5

[Andreas Gruenbacher]

On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 6:30 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [ Adding fsdevel, because this is not limited to gfs2 ]
>
> On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 12:56 AM Andreas Gruenbacher
> <agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Andreas Gruenbacher (2):
> >       gfs2: Fix mmap locking for write faults
>
> This is bogus.
>
> I've pulled it, but this is just wrong.
>
> A write fault on a mmap IS NOT A WRITE to the filesystem.
>
> It's a read.
>
> Yes, it will later then allow writes to the page, but that's entirely
> immaterial - because the write is going to happen not at fault time,
> but long *after* the fault, and long *after* the filesystem has
> installed the page.
>
> The actual write will happen when the kernel returns from the user space.
>
> And no, the explanation in that commit makes no sense either:
>
>    "When a write fault occurs, we need to take the inode glock of the underlying
>     inode in exclusive mode.  Otherwise, there's no guarantee that the
> dirty page
>     will be written back to disk"
>
> the thing is, FAULT_FLAG_WRITE only says that the *currently* pending
> access that triggered the fault was a write. That's entirely
> irrelevant to a filesystem, because
>
>  (a) it might be a private mapping, and a write to a page will cause a
> COW by the VM layer, and it's not actually a filesystem write at all
>
> AND
>
>  (b) if it's a shared mapping, the first access that paged things in
> is likely a READ, and the page will be marked writable (because it's a
> shared mapping!) and subsequent writes will not cause any faults at
> all.
>
> In other words, a filesystem that checks for FAULT_FLAG_WRITE is
> _doubly_ wrong. It's absolutely never the right thing to do. It
> *cannot* be the right thing to do.
>
> And yes, some other filesystems do this crazy thing too. If your
> friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?
>
> The xfs and ext3/ext4 cases are wrong too - but at least they spent
> five seconds (but no more) thinking about it, and they added the check
> for VM_SHARED. So they are only wrong for reason (b)
>
> But wrong is wrong. The new code is not right in gfs2, and the old
> code in xfs/ext4 is not right either.
>
> Yeah, yeah, you can - and people do - do things like "always mark the
> page readable on initial page fault, use mkwrite to catch when it
> becomes writable, and do timestamps carefully, at at least have full
> knowledge of "something might become dirty"
>
> But even then it is ENTIRELY BOGUS to do things like write locking.
>
> Really.
>
> Because the actual write HASN'T HAPPENED YET, AND YOU WILL RELEASE THE
> LOCK BEFORE IT EVER DOES! So the lock? It does nothing. If you think
> it protects anything at all, you're wrong.
>
> So don't do write locking. At an absolute most, you can do things like
>
>  - update file times (and honestly, that's quite questionable -
> because again - THE WRITE HASN'T HAPPENED YET - so any tests that
> depend on exact file access times to figure out when the last write
> was done is not being helped by your extra code, because you're
> setting the WRONG time.
>
>  - set some "this inode will have dirty pages" flag just for some
> possible future use. But honestly, if this is about consistency etc,
> you need to do it not for a fault, but across the whole mmap/munmap.
>
> So some things may be less bogus - but still very very questionable.
>
> But locking? Bogus. Reads and writes aren't really any different from
> a timestamp standpoint (if you think you need to mtime for write
> accesses, you should do atime for reads, so from a filesystem
> timestamp standpoint read and write faults are exactly the same - and
> both are bogus, because by definition for a mmap both the reads and
> the writes can then happen long long long afterwards, and repeatedly).
>
> And if that "set some flag" thing needs a write lock, but a read
> doesn't, you're doing something wrong and odd.
>
> Look at the VM code. The VM code does this right. The mmap_sem is
> taken for writing for mmap and for munmap. But a page fault is always
> a read lock, even if the access that caused the page fault is a write.
>
> The actual real honest-to-goodness *write* happens much later, and the
> only time the filesystem really knows when it is done is at writeback
> time. Not at fault time. So if you take locks, logically you should
> take them when the fault happens, and release them when the writeback
> is done.
>
> Are you doing that? No. So don't do the write lock over the read
> portion of the page fault. It is not a sensible operation.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I'll work on a fix.

Andreas