On 2018年05月15日 16:21, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> 
> 
> On 15.05.2018 10:36, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> As btrfs(5) specified:
>>
>>      Note
>>      If nodatacow or nodatasum are enabled, compression is disabled.
>>
>> If NODATASUM or NODATACOW set, we should not compress the extent.
>>
>> Normally NODATACOW is detected properly in run_delalloc_range() so
>> compression won't happen for NODATACOW.
>>
>> However for NODATASUM we don't have any check, and it can cause
>> compressed extent without csum pretty easily, just by:
>> ------
>> mkfs.btrfs -f $dev
>> mount $dev $mnt -o nodatasum
>> touch $mnt/foobar
>> mount -o remount,datasum,compress $mnt
>> xfs_io -f -c "pwrite 0 128K" $mnt/foobar
>> ------
>>
>> And in fact, we have bug report about corrupted compressed extent
>> without proper data checksum so even RAID1 can't recover the corruption.
>> (https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=199707)
>>
>> Running compression without proper checksum could cause more damage when
>> corruption happens, so there is no need to allow compression for
>> NODATACSUM.
>>
>> Reported-by: James Harvey <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>  fs/btrfs/inode.c | 8 ++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> index d241285a0d2a..dbef3f404559 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> @@ -396,6 +396,14 @@ static inline int inode_need_compress(struct inode 
>> *inode, u64 start, u64 end)
>>  {
>>      struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = btrfs_sb(inode->i_sb);
>>  
>> +    /*
>> +     * Btrfs doesn't support compression without csum or CoW.
>> +     * This should have the highest priority.
>> +     */
>> +    if (BTRFS_I(inode)->flags & BTRFS_INODE_NODATACOW ||
>> +        BTRFS_I(inode)->flags & BTRFS_INODE_NODATASUM)
>> +            return 0;
>> +
> 
> How is this not buggy, given that if inode_need_compress as called from 
> compress_file_range will return zero, meaning we jump to cont: label. 
> Then in the case of an inline extent we can execute : 

In that case, you won't go into compress_file_range() at all.

As the only caller of compress_file_range() is async_cow_start(), which
get queued in cow_file_range_async().

And cow_file_range_async() traces back to run_delalloc_range().
Here we determine (basically) where some dirty range goes.

The modification in inode_need_compress() mostly affects the decision in
run_delalloc_range(), so we won't go cow_file_range_async(), thus we
won't hit the problem you described.
> 
> ret = cow_file_range_inline(inode, start, end,          
>                            total_compressed,           
>                            compress_type, pages);   
> 
> where compress_type would have been set at the beginning of the 
> function unconditionally to fs_info->compress_type. 
> 
> For non-inline extents I guess we are ok, given that will_compress 
> will not be set. However, this code is rather messy and I'm not sure 
> it's well defined what's going to happen in this case with inline extents. 
> 
> OTOH, I think there is something fundamentally wrong in calling 
> inode_need_compress in compress_file_range. I.e they work at different 
> abstractions. IMO compress_file_range should only be called if we know 
> we have to compress the range. 
> 
> So looking around the code in run_delalloc_range (the only function 
> which calls cow_file_range_async) we already have : 
> 
>  } else if (!inode_need_compress(inode, start, end)) {                   
>                 ret = cow_file_range(inode, locked_page, start, end, end,     
>   
>                                       page_started, nr_written, 1, NULL);   
> 
> and in the else branch we have the cow_file_range_async. So the code 
> is sort of half-way there to actually decoupling compression checking from 
> performing the actual compression. 
> 
> 
>>      /* force compress */
>>      if (btrfs_test_opt(fs_info, FORCE_COMPRESS))
>>              return 1;
> 
> One more thing, in inode_need_compress shouldn't the inode specific
> checks come first something like :
> 
> 
> static inline int inode_need_compress(struct inode *inode, u64 start, u64 
> end)  
> {                                                                             
>   
>         struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = btrfs_sb(inode->i_sb);                
>   
>                                                                               
>   
>         /* defrag ioctl */                                                    
>   
>         if (BTRFS_I(inode)->defrag_compress)                                  
>   
>                 return 1;                                                     
>   
>         /* bad compression ratios */                                          
>   
>         if (BTRFS_I(inode)->flags & BTRFS_INODE_NOCOMPRESS)                   
>   
>                 return 0;                                                     
>   

Not exactly.
Force-compress should less us bypass bad compression ratio, so it should
be at least before ratio check.

Thanks,
Qu

>         /* force compress */                                                  
>   
>         if (btrfs_test_opt(fs_info, FORCE_COMPRESS))                          
>   
>                 return 1;                                                     
>   
>         if (btrfs_test_opt(fs_info, COMPRESS) ||                              
>   
>             BTRFS_I(inode)->flags & BTRFS_INODE_COMPRESS ||                   
>   
>             BTRFS_I(inode)->prop_compress)                                    
>   
>                 return btrfs_compress_heuristic(inode, start, end);           
>   
>         return 0;                                                             
>   
> }             
> 
>>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to