Re: [RFC 4/9] dm: add llseek(SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA) support

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 12:02:19PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:11:47AM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> ...
> > > > +static loff_t dm_blk_do_seek_hole_data(struct dm_table *table, loff_t offset,
> > > > +		int whence)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct dm_target *ti;
> > > > +	loff_t end;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* Loop when the end of a target is reached */
> > > > +	do {
> > > > +		ti = dm_table_find_target(table, offset >> SECTOR_SHIFT);
> > > > +		if (!ti)
> > > > +			return whence == SEEK_DATA ? -ENXIO : offset;
> > > 
> > > ...but this blindly returns offset for SEEK_HOLE, even when offset is
> > > beyond the end of the dm.  I think you want 'return -ENXIO;'
> > > unconditionally here.
> > 
> > If the initial offset is beyond the end of the table, then SEEK_HOLE
> > should return -ENXIO. I agree that the code doesn't handle this case.
> > 
> > However, returning offset here is correct when there is data at the end
> > with SEEK_HOLE.
> > 
> > I'll update the code to address the out-of-bounds offset case, perhaps
> > by checking the initial offset before entering the loop.
> 
> You are correct that if we are on the second loop iteration of
> SEEK_HOLE (because the first iteration saw all data), then we have
> found the offset of the start of a hole and should return that offset,
> not -ENXIO.  This may be a case where we just have to be careful on
> whether the initial pass might have any corner cases different from
> later times through the loop, and that we end the loop with correct
> results for both SEEK_HOLE and SEEK_DATA.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > +
> > > > +		end = (ti->begin + ti->len) << SECTOR_SHIFT;
> > > > +
> > > > +		if (ti->type->seek_hole_data)
> > > > +			offset = ti->type->seek_hole_data(ti, offset, whence);
> > > 
> > > Are we guaranteed that ti->type->seek_hole_data will not return a
> > > value exceeding end?  Or can dm be used to truncate the view of an
> > > underlying device, and the underlying seek_hold_data can now return an
> > > answer beyond where dm_table_find_target should look for the next part
> > > of the dm's view?
> > 
> > ti->type->seek_hole_data() must not return a value larger than
> > (ti->begin + ti->len) << SECTOR_SHIFT.
> 
> Worth adding as documentation then.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > In which case, should the blkdev_seek_hole_data callback be passed a
> > > max size parameter everywhere, similar to how fixed_size_llseek does
> > > things?
> > > 
> > > > +		else
> > > > +			offset = dm_blk_seek_hole_data_default(offset, whence, end);
> > > > +
> > > > +		if (whence == SEEK_DATA && offset == -ENXIO)
> > > > +			offset = end;
> > > 
> > > You have a bug here.  If I have a dm contructed of two underlying targets:
> > > 
> > > |A  |B  |
> > > 
> > > and A is all data, then whence == SEEK_HOLE will have offset = -ENXIO
> > > at this point, and you fail to check whether B is also data.  That is,
> > > you have silently treated the rest of the block device as data, which
> > > is semantically not wrong (as that is always a safe fallback), but not
> > > optimal.
> > > 
> > > I think the correct logic is s/whence == SEEK_DATA &&//.
> > 
> > No, with whence == SEEK_HOLE and an initial offset in A, the new offset
> > will be (A->begin + A->end) << SECTOR_SHIFT. The loop will iterate and
> > continue seeking into B.
> > 
> > The if statement you commented on ensures that we also continue looping
> > with whence == SEEK_DATA, because that would otherwise prematurely end
> > with the new offset = -ENXIO.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > +	} while (offset == end);
> > > 
> > > I'm trying to make sure that we can never return the equivalent of
> > > lseek(dm, 0, SEEK_END).  If you make my above suggested changes, we
> > > will iterate through the do loop once more at EOF, and
> > > dm_table_find_target() will then fail to match at which point we do
> > > get the desired -ENXIO for both SEEK_HOLE and SEEK_DATA.
> > 
> > Wait, lseek() is supposed to return the equivalent of lseek(dm, 0,
> > SEEK_END) when whence == SEEK_HOLE and there is data at the end.
> 
> It was confusing enough for me to write my initial review, I apologize
> if I'm making it harder for you.

No worries, if my code is hard to understand I can learn from your
feedback.

> Yes, we want to ensure that:
> 
> off1 = lseek(fd, -1, SEEK_END);
> off2 = off1 + 1; // == lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_END)
> 
> if off1 belongs to a data extent:
>   - lseek(fd, off1, SEEK_DATA) == off1
>   - lseek(fd, off1, SEEK_HOLE) == off2
>   - lseek(fd, off2, SEEK_DATA) == -ENXIO
>   - lseek(fd, off2, SEEK_HOLE) == -ENXIO

Agreed.

> if off1 belongs to a hole:
>   - lseek(fd, off1, SEEK_DATA) == -ENXIO
>   - lseek(fd, off1, SEEK_HOLE) == off1
>   - lseek(fd, off2, SEEK_DATA) == -ENXIO
>   - lseek(fd, off2, SEEK_HOLE) == -ENXIO

Agreed.

> 
> Anything in my wall of text from the earlier message inconsistent with
> this table can be ignored; but at the same time, I was not able to
> quickly convince myself that your code properly had those properties,
> even after writing up the table.
> 
> Reiterating what I said elsewhere, it may be smarter to document that
> for callbacks, it is wiser to require intermediate behavior that the
> input value 'offset' is always between the half-open range
> [ti->begin<<SECTOR_SHIFT, (ti->begin+ti->len)<<SECTOR_SHIFT), and on
> success, the output must be in the fully-closed range [offset,
> (ti->begin+ti->len)<<SECTOR_SHIFT], errors like -EIO are permitted but
> -ENXIO should not be returned; and let the caller worry about
> synthesizing -ENXIO from that (since the caller knows whether or not
> there is a successor ti where adjacency concerns come into play).
> 
> That is, we can never pass in off2 (beyond the bounds of the table),
> and when passing in off1, I think this interface may be easier to work
> with in the intermediate layers, even though it differs from the
> lseek() interface above.  For off1 in data:
>   - dm_blk_do_seek_hole_data(dm, off1, SEEK_DATA) == off1
>   - dm_blk_do_seek_hole_data(dm, off1, SEEK_HOLE) == off2
> and for a hole:
>   - dm_blk_do_seek_hole_data(dm, off1, SEEK_DATA) == off2
>   - dm_blk_do_seek_hole_data(dm, off1, SEEK_HOLE) == off1

I'll take a look again starting from block/fops.c, through dm.c, and
into dm-linear.c to see how to make things clearest. Although I would
like to have the same semantics for every seek function, maybe in the
end your suggestion will make the code clearer. Let's see.

Stefan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature