From: Yongpeng Yang <[email protected]>

During SPO tests, when mounting F2FS, an -EINVAL error was returned from
f2fs_recover_inode_page. The issue occurred under the following scenario

Thread A                                     Thread B
f2fs_ioc_commit_atomic_write
 - f2fs_do_sync_file // atomic = true
  - f2fs_fsync_node_pages
    : last_folio = inode folio
    : schedule before folio_lock(last_folio) f2fs_write_checkpoint
                                              - block_operations// writeback 
last_folio
                                              - schedule before 
f2fs_flush_nat_entries
    : set_fsync_mark(last_folio, 1)
    : set_dentry_mark(last_folio, 1)
    : folio_mark_dirty(last_folio)
    : __write_node_folio(last_folio)
                                              - f2fs_flush_nat_entries
                                                : {struct nat_entry}->flag |= 
BIT(IS_CHECKPOINTED)
                                             SPO

Thread A calls f2fs_need_dentry_mark(sbi, ino), and the last_folio has
already been written once. However, the {struct nat_entry}->flag did not
have the IS_CHECKPOINTED set, causing set_dentry_mark(last_folio, 1) and
write last_folio again.

After SPO and reboot, it was detected that {struct node_info}->blk_addr
was not NULL_ADDR because Thread B successfully write the checkpoint.

This issue only occurs in atomic write scenarios, and does not affect
regular file fsync operations. Therefore, for atomic file fsync,
sbi->node_write should be acquired through __write_node_folio to ensure
that the IS_CHECKPOINTED flag correctly indicates that the checkpoint
write has been completed.

Fixes: 608514deba38 ("f2fs: set fsync mark only for the last dnode")
Signed-off-by: Sheng Yong <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jinbao Liu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yongpeng Yang <[email protected]>
---
v2:
- set_dentry_mark for atomic file's last_folio in __write_node_folio.
---
 fs/f2fs/node.c | 14 ++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
index 482a362f2625..2c6102bee349 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
@@ -1774,8 +1774,13 @@ static bool __write_node_folio(struct folio *folio, bool 
atomic, bool *submitted
                goto redirty_out;
        }
 
-       if (atomic && !test_opt(sbi, NOBARRIER))
-               fio.op_flags |= REQ_PREFLUSH | REQ_FUA;
+       if (atomic) {
+               if (!test_opt(sbi, NOBARRIER))
+                       fio.op_flags |= REQ_PREFLUSH | REQ_FUA;
+               if (IS_INODE(folio))
+                       set_dentry_mark(folio,
+                               f2fs_need_dentry_mark(sbi, ino_of_node(folio)));
+       }
 
        /* should add to global list before clearing PAGECACHE status */
        if (f2fs_in_warm_node_list(sbi, folio)) {
@@ -1916,8 +1921,9 @@ int f2fs_fsync_node_pages(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, 
struct inode *inode,
                                        if (is_inode_flag_set(inode,
                                                                FI_DIRTY_INODE))
                                                f2fs_update_inode(inode, folio);
-                                       set_dentry_mark(folio,
-                                               f2fs_need_dentry_mark(sbi, 
ino));
+                                       if (!atomic)
+                                               set_dentry_mark(folio,
+                                                       
f2fs_need_dentry_mark(sbi, ino));
                                }
                                /* may be written by other thread */
                                if (!folio_test_dirty(folio))
-- 
2.43.0



_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel

Reply via email to