| Message ID | 20210215154317.8590-1-lhenriques@suse.de |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] vfs: prevent copy_file_range to copy across devices | expand |
On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 15:43 +0000, Luis Henriques 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. That explanation makes no sense whatsoever. copy_file_range is a non- atomic operation and so the file can change while being copied. Any determination of 'how much data is present' that is made in advance would therefore be a flaw in the copy process being used (i.e. do_splice_direct()). Does sendfile() also 'issue' in the same way? -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 18:34 +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 5:42 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> > 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@chromium.org/ > > Cc: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org> > > Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> > > Code looks ok. > You may add: > > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> > > 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). -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:57 PM Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com> 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@hammerspace.com> 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@suse.de> > > > > 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@chromium.org/ > > > > > Cc: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> > > > > > > > > Code looks ok. > > > > You may add: > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > 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. 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(). Thanks, Amir.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 10:11 AM Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 15:43 +0000, Luis Henriques 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. > > That explanation makes no sense whatsoever. copy_file_range is a non- > atomic operation and so the file can change while being copied. Any > determination of 'how much data is present' that is made in advance > would therefore be a flaw in the copy process being used (i.e. > do_splice_direct()). Does sendfile() also 'issue' in the same way? I agree that the explanation of the tracefs problem motivating this patch doesn't make sense. -- Thanks, Steve
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:57 PM Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com> 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@hammerspace.com> 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@suse.de> >> > > > 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@chromium.org/ >> > > > > Cc: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org> >> > > > > Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> >> > > > >> > > > Code looks ok. >> > > > You may add: >> > > > >> > > > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> >> > > > >> > > > 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? Cheers, -- Luis diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c index 75f764b43418..341d315d2a96 100644 --- a/fs/read_write.c +++ b/fs/read_write.c @@ -1383,6 +1383,13 @@ ssize_t generic_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, size_t len, unsigned int flags) { + if (!(flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) { + if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) + return -EOPNOTSUPP; + else if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range != + file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) + return -EXDEV; + } return do_splice_direct(file_in, &pos_in, file_out, &pos_out, len > MAX_RW_COUNT ? MAX_RW_COUNT : len, 0); } @@ -1474,9 +1481,6 @@ ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, { ssize_t ret; - if (flags != 0) - return -EINVAL; - ret = generic_copy_file_checks(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out, &len, flags); if (unlikely(ret))
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:17:34AM +0000, Luis Henriques wrote: > Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:57 PM Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com> 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@hammerspace.com> 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@suse.de> > >> > > > 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@chromium.org/ > >> > > > > Cc: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org> > >> > > > > Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> > >> > > > > >> > > > Code looks ok. > >> > > > You may add: > >> > > > > >> > > > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> > >> > > > > >> > > > 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?
"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:17:34AM +0000, Luis Henriques wrote: >> Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:57 PM Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com> 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@hammerspace.com> 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@suse.de> >> >> > > > 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@chromium.org/ >> >> > > > > Cc: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org> >> >> > > > > Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Code looks ok. >> >> > > > You may add: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > 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? In fact, my question sort of implied yours :-) What I wanted to know was whether we would like to allow userspace to _explicitly_ revert to the current behaviour (i.e. use the flag to allow cross-fs copies) or to continue to return -EINVAL to userspace if flags are != 0 (in which case this check would need to move to the syscall definition). Cheers, -- Luis
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 12:01:16PM +0000, Luis Henriques wrote: > "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes: > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:17:34AM +0000, Luis Henriques wrote: > >> Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:57 PM Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com> 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@hammerspace.com> 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@suse.de> > >> >> > > > 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@chromium.org/ > >> >> > > > > Cc: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org> > >> >> > > > > Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Code looks ok. > >> >> > > > You may add: > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > 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? > > In fact, my question sort of implied yours :-) > > What I wanted to know was whether we would like to allow userspace to > _explicitly_ revert to the current behaviour (i.e. use the flag to allow > cross-fs copies) or to continue to return -EINVAL to userspace if flags > are != 0 (in which case this check would need to move to the syscall > definition). No, don't try to mess with userspace that way, the kernel should "just work". Well, in this case "work as best as it can, not always successful...", it's an odd syscall. thanks, greg k-h
> Ugh. And I guess overlayfs may have a similar problem. Not exactly. Generally speaking, overlayfs should call vfs_copy_file_range() with the flags it got from layer above, so if called from nfsd it will allow cross fs copy and when called from syscall it won't. There are some corner cases where overlayfs could benefit from COPY_FILE_SPLICE (e.g. copy from lower file to upper file), but let's leave those for now. Just leave overlayfs code as is. > > > 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? Grep for REMAP_FILE_ Same header file, same Documentation rst file. > > Cheers, > -- > Luis > > diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c > index 75f764b43418..341d315d2a96 100644 > --- a/fs/read_write.c > +++ b/fs/read_write.c > @@ -1383,6 +1383,13 @@ ssize_t generic_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, > size_t len, unsigned int flags) > { > + if (!(flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) { > + if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + else if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range != > + file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) > + return -EXDEV; > + } That looks strange, because you are duplicating the logic in do_copy_file_range(). Maybe better: if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & ~COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) return -EINVAL; if (flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE) return do_splice_direct(file_in, &pos_in, file_out, &pos_out, len > MAX_RW_COUNT ? MAX_RW_COUNT : len, 0); if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) return -EOPNOTSUPP; return -EXDEV; > } > @@ -1474,9 +1481,6 @@ ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > { > ssize_t ret; > > - if (flags != 0) > - return -EINVAL; > - This needs to move to the beginning of SYSCALL_DEFINE6(copy_file_range,... Thanks, Amir.
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: >> Ugh. And I guess overlayfs may have a similar problem. > > Not exactly. > Generally speaking, overlayfs should call vfs_copy_file_range() > with the flags it got from layer above, so if called from nfsd it > will allow cross fs copy and when called from syscall it won't. > > There are some corner cases where overlayfs could benefit from > COPY_FILE_SPLICE (e.g. copy from lower file to upper file), but > let's leave those for now. Just leave overlayfs code as is. Got it, thanks for clarifying. >> > 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? > > Grep for REMAP_FILE_ > Same header file, same Documentation rst file. > >> >> Cheers, >> -- >> Luis >> >> diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c >> index 75f764b43418..341d315d2a96 100644 >> --- a/fs/read_write.c >> +++ b/fs/read_write.c >> @@ -1383,6 +1383,13 @@ ssize_t generic_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, >> struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, >> size_t len, unsigned int flags) >> { >> + if (!(flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) { >> + if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> + else if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range != >> + file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) >> + return -EXDEV; >> + } > > That looks strange, because you are duplicating the logic in > do_copy_file_range(). Maybe better: > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & ~COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) > return -EINVAL; > if (flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE) > return do_splice_direct(file_in, &pos_in, file_out, &pos_out, > len > MAX_RW_COUNT ? MAX_RW_COUNT : len, 0); My initial reasoning for duplicating the logic in do_copy_file_range() was to allow the generic_copy_file_range() callers to be left unmodified and allow the filesystems to default to this implementation. With this change, I guess that the calls to generic_copy_file_range() from the different filesystems can be dropped, as in my initial patch, as they will always get -EINVAL. The other option would be to set the COPY_FILE_SPLICE flag in those calls, but that would get us back to the problem we're trying to solve. > if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > return -EXDEV; > >> } >> @@ -1474,9 +1481,6 @@ ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, >> { >> ssize_t ret; >> >> - if (flags != 0) >> - return -EINVAL; >> - > > This needs to move to the beginning of SYSCALL_DEFINE6(copy_file_range,... Yep, I didn't included that change in my diff as I wasn't sure if you'd like to have the flag visible in userspace. Anyway, thanks for your patience! Cheers, -- Luis
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 6:41 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: > > Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > > >> Ugh. And I guess overlayfs may have a similar problem. > > > > Not exactly. > > Generally speaking, overlayfs should call vfs_copy_file_range() > > with the flags it got from layer above, so if called from nfsd it > > will allow cross fs copy and when called from syscall it won't. > > > > There are some corner cases where overlayfs could benefit from > > COPY_FILE_SPLICE (e.g. copy from lower file to upper file), but > > let's leave those for now. Just leave overlayfs code as is. > > Got it, thanks for clarifying. > > >> > 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? > > > > Grep for REMAP_FILE_ > > Same header file, same Documentation rst file. > > > >> > >> Cheers, > >> -- > >> Luis > >> > >> diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c > >> index 75f764b43418..341d315d2a96 100644 > >> --- a/fs/read_write.c > >> +++ b/fs/read_write.c > >> @@ -1383,6 +1383,13 @@ ssize_t generic_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > >> struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, > >> size_t len, unsigned int flags) > >> { > >> + if (!(flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) { > >> + if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) > >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > >> + else if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range != > >> + file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) > >> + return -EXDEV; > >> + } > > > > That looks strange, because you are duplicating the logic in > > do_copy_file_range(). Maybe better: > > > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & ~COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) > > return -EINVAL; > > if (flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE) > > return do_splice_direct(file_in, &pos_in, file_out, &pos_out, > > len > MAX_RW_COUNT ? MAX_RW_COUNT : len, 0); > > My initial reasoning for duplicating the logic in do_copy_file_range() was > to allow the generic_copy_file_range() callers to be left unmodified and > allow the filesystems to default to this implementation. > > With this change, I guess that the calls to generic_copy_file_range() from > the different filesystems can be dropped, as in my initial patch, as they > will always get -EINVAL. The other option would be to set the > COPY_FILE_SPLICE flag in those calls, but that would get us back to the > problem we're trying to solve. I don't understand the problem. What exactly is wrong with the code I suggested? Why should any filesystem be changed? Maybe I am missing something. Thanks, Amir.
On Feb 16, 2021, at 6:51 AM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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? >> >> Cheers, >> -- >> Luis >> >> diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c >> index 75f764b43418..341d315d2a96 100644 >> --- a/fs/read_write.c >> +++ b/fs/read_write.c >> @@ -1383,6 +1383,13 @@ ssize_t generic_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, >> struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, >> size_t len, unsigned int flags) >> { >> + if (!(flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) { >> + if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> + else if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range != >> + file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) >> + return -EXDEV; >> + } > > That looks strange, because you are duplicating the logic in > do_copy_file_range(). Maybe better: > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & ~COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) > return -EINVAL; > if (flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE) > return do_splice_direct(file_in, &pos_in, file_out, &pos_out, > len > MAX_RW_COUNT ? MAX_RW_COUNT : len, 0); > if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > return -EXDEV; This shouldn't return -EINVAL to userspace if the flag is not set. That implies there *is* some valid way for userspace to call this function, which is AFAICS not possible if COPY_FILE_SPLICE is only available to in-kernel callers. Instead, it should continue to return -EOPNOTSUPP to userspace if copy_file_range() is not valid for this combination of file descriptors, so that applications will fall back to the non-CFR implementation. The WARN_ON_ONCE(ret == -EOPNOTSUPP) in vfs_copy_file_range() would also need to be removed if this will be triggered from userspace. Cheers, Andreas
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 6:41 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: >> >> Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> Ugh. And I guess overlayfs may have a similar problem. >> > >> > Not exactly. >> > Generally speaking, overlayfs should call vfs_copy_file_range() >> > with the flags it got from layer above, so if called from nfsd it >> > will allow cross fs copy and when called from syscall it won't. >> > >> > There are some corner cases where overlayfs could benefit from >> > COPY_FILE_SPLICE (e.g. copy from lower file to upper file), but >> > let's leave those for now. Just leave overlayfs code as is. >> >> Got it, thanks for clarifying. >> >> >> > 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? >> > >> > Grep for REMAP_FILE_ >> > Same header file, same Documentation rst file. >> > >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- >> >> Luis >> >> >> >> diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c >> >> index 75f764b43418..341d315d2a96 100644 >> >> --- a/fs/read_write.c >> >> +++ b/fs/read_write.c >> >> @@ -1383,6 +1383,13 @@ ssize_t generic_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, >> >> struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, >> >> size_t len, unsigned int flags) >> >> { >> >> + if (!(flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) { >> >> + if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) >> >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> >> + else if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range != >> >> + file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) >> >> + return -EXDEV; >> >> + } >> > >> > That looks strange, because you are duplicating the logic in >> > do_copy_file_range(). Maybe better: >> > >> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & ~COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) >> > return -EINVAL; >> > if (flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE) >> > return do_splice_direct(file_in, &pos_in, file_out, &pos_out, >> > len > MAX_RW_COUNT ? MAX_RW_COUNT : len, 0); >> >> My initial reasoning for duplicating the logic in do_copy_file_range() was >> to allow the generic_copy_file_range() callers to be left unmodified and >> allow the filesystems to default to this implementation. >> >> With this change, I guess that the calls to generic_copy_file_range() from >> the different filesystems can be dropped, as in my initial patch, as they >> will always get -EINVAL. The other option would be to set the >> COPY_FILE_SPLICE flag in those calls, but that would get us back to the >> problem we're trying to solve. > > I don't understand the problem. > > What exactly is wrong with the code I suggested? > Why should any filesystem be changed? > > Maybe I am missing something. Ok, I have to do a full brain reboot and start all over. Before that, I picked the code you suggested and tested it. I've mounted a cephfs filesystem and used xfs_io to execute a 'copy_range' command using /sys/kernel/debug/sched_features as source. The result was a 0-sized file in cephfs. And the reason is thevfs_copy_file_range() early exit in: if (len == 0) return 0; 'len' is set in generic_copy_file_checks(). This means that we're not solving the original problem anymore (probably since v1 of this patch, haven't checked). Also, re-reading Trond's emails, I read: "... also disallowing the copy from, say, an XFS formatted partition to an ext4 partition". Isn't that *exactly* what we're trying to do here? I.e. _prevent_ these copies from happening so that tracefs files can't be CFR'ed? /me stops now and waits to see if the morning brings some sun :-) Cheers, -- Luis
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 8:54 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: > > Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 6:41 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: > >> > >> Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> >> Ugh. And I guess overlayfs may have a similar problem. > >> > > >> > Not exactly. > >> > Generally speaking, overlayfs should call vfs_copy_file_range() > >> > with the flags it got from layer above, so if called from nfsd it > >> > will allow cross fs copy and when called from syscall it won't. > >> > > >> > There are some corner cases where overlayfs could benefit from > >> > COPY_FILE_SPLICE (e.g. copy from lower file to upper file), but > >> > let's leave those for now. Just leave overlayfs code as is. > >> > >> Got it, thanks for clarifying. > >> > >> >> > 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? > >> > > >> > Grep for REMAP_FILE_ > >> > Same header file, same Documentation rst file. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> Cheers, > >> >> -- > >> >> Luis > >> >> > >> >> diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c > >> >> index 75f764b43418..341d315d2a96 100644 > >> >> --- a/fs/read_write.c > >> >> +++ b/fs/read_write.c > >> >> @@ -1383,6 +1383,13 @@ ssize_t generic_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > >> >> struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, > >> >> size_t len, unsigned int flags) > >> >> { > >> >> + if (!(flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) { > >> >> + if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) > >> >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > >> >> + else if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range != > >> >> + file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) > >> >> + return -EXDEV; > >> >> + } > >> > > >> > That looks strange, because you are duplicating the logic in > >> > do_copy_file_range(). Maybe better: > >> > > >> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & ~COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) > >> > return -EINVAL; > >> > if (flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE) > >> > return do_splice_direct(file_in, &pos_in, file_out, &pos_out, > >> > len > MAX_RW_COUNT ? MAX_RW_COUNT : len, 0); > >> > >> My initial reasoning for duplicating the logic in do_copy_file_range() was > >> to allow the generic_copy_file_range() callers to be left unmodified and > >> allow the filesystems to default to this implementation. > >> > >> With this change, I guess that the calls to generic_copy_file_range() from > >> the different filesystems can be dropped, as in my initial patch, as they > >> will always get -EINVAL. The other option would be to set the > >> COPY_FILE_SPLICE flag in those calls, but that would get us back to the > >> problem we're trying to solve. > > > > I don't understand the problem. > > > > What exactly is wrong with the code I suggested? > > Why should any filesystem be changed? > > > > Maybe I am missing something. > > Ok, I have to do a full brain reboot and start all over. > > Before that, I picked the code you suggested and tested it. I've mounted > a cephfs filesystem and used xfs_io to execute a 'copy_range' command > using /sys/kernel/debug/sched_features as source. The result was a > 0-sized file in cephfs. And the reason is thevfs_copy_file_range() > early exit in: > > if (len == 0) > return 0; > > 'len' is set in generic_copy_file_checks(). Good point.. I guess we will need to do all the checks earlier in generic_copy_file_checks() including the logic of: if (file_in->f_op->remap_file_range && file_inode(file_in)->i_sb == file_inode(file_out)->i_sb) > > This means that we're not solving the original problem anymore (probably > since v1 of this patch, haven't checked). > > Also, re-reading Trond's emails, I read: "... also disallowing the copy > from, say, an XFS formatted partition to an ext4 partition". Isn't that > *exactly* what we're trying to do here? I.e. _prevent_ these copies from > happening so that tracefs files can't be CFR'ed? > We want to address the report which means calls coming from copy_file_range() syscall. Trond's use case is vfs_copy_file_range() coming from nfsd. When he writes about copy from XFS to ext4, he means an NFS client is issuing server side copy (on same or different NFS mounts) and the NFS server is executing nfsd_copy_file_range() on a source file that happens to be on XFS and destination happens to be on ext4. We can undo the copy_file_range() syscall change of behavior from v5.3 without regressing the NFS use case. We just need to be careful and look at all the affected code paths. Thanks, Amir.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 2:22 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 8:54 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: > > > > Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 6:41 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: > > >> > > >> Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > > >> > > >> >> Ugh. And I guess overlayfs may have a similar problem. > > >> > > > >> > Not exactly. > > >> > Generally speaking, overlayfs should call vfs_copy_file_range() > > >> > with the flags it got from layer above, so if called from nfsd it > > >> > will allow cross fs copy and when called from syscall it won't. > > >> > > > >> > There are some corner cases where overlayfs could benefit from > > >> > COPY_FILE_SPLICE (e.g. copy from lower file to upper file), but > > >> > let's leave those for now. Just leave overlayfs code as is. > > >> > > >> Got it, thanks for clarifying. > > >> > > >> >> > 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? > > >> > > > >> > Grep for REMAP_FILE_ > > >> > Same header file, same Documentation rst file. > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> Cheers, > > >> >> -- > > >> >> Luis > > >> >> > > >> >> diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c > > >> >> index 75f764b43418..341d315d2a96 100644 > > >> >> --- a/fs/read_write.c > > >> >> +++ b/fs/read_write.c > > >> >> @@ -1383,6 +1383,13 @@ ssize_t generic_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > > >> >> struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, > > >> >> size_t len, unsigned int flags) > > >> >> { > > >> >> + if (!(flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) { > > >> >> + if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) > > >> >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > >> >> + else if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range != > > >> >> + file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) > > >> >> + return -EXDEV; > > >> >> + } > > >> > > > >> > That looks strange, because you are duplicating the logic in > > >> > do_copy_file_range(). Maybe better: > > >> > > > >> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & ~COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) > > >> > return -EINVAL; > > >> > if (flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE) > > >> > return do_splice_direct(file_in, &pos_in, file_out, &pos_out, > > >> > len > MAX_RW_COUNT ? MAX_RW_COUNT : len, 0); > > >> > > >> My initial reasoning for duplicating the logic in do_copy_file_range() was > > >> to allow the generic_copy_file_range() callers to be left unmodified and > > >> allow the filesystems to default to this implementation. > > >> > > >> With this change, I guess that the calls to generic_copy_file_range() from > > >> the different filesystems can be dropped, as in my initial patch, as they > > >> will always get -EINVAL. The other option would be to set the > > >> COPY_FILE_SPLICE flag in those calls, but that would get us back to the > > >> problem we're trying to solve. > > > > > > I don't understand the problem. > > > > > > What exactly is wrong with the code I suggested? > > > Why should any filesystem be changed? > > > > > > Maybe I am missing something. > > > > Ok, I have to do a full brain reboot and start all over. > > > > Before that, I picked the code you suggested and tested it. I've mounted > > a cephfs filesystem and used xfs_io to execute a 'copy_range' command > > using /sys/kernel/debug/sched_features as source. The result was a > > 0-sized file in cephfs. And the reason is thevfs_copy_file_range() > > early exit in: > > > > if (len == 0) > > return 0; > > > > 'len' is set in generic_copy_file_checks(). > > Good point.. I guess we will need to do all the checks earlier in > generic_copy_file_checks() including the logic of: > > if (file_in->f_op->remap_file_range && > file_inode(file_in)->i_sb == file_inode(file_out)->i_sb) > > > > > > This means that we're not solving the original problem anymore (probably > > since v1 of this patch, haven't checked). > > > > Also, re-reading Trond's emails, I read: "... also disallowing the copy > > from, say, an XFS formatted partition to an ext4 partition". Isn't that > > *exactly* what we're trying to do here? I.e. _prevent_ these copies from > > happening so that tracefs files can't be CFR'ed? > > > > We want to address the report which means calls coming from > copy_file_range() syscall. > > Trond's use case is vfs_copy_file_range() coming from nfsd. > When he writes about copy from XFS to ext4, he means an > NFS client is issuing server side copy (on same or different NFS mounts) > and the NFS server is executing nfsd_copy_file_range() on a source > file that happens to be on XFS and destination happens to be on ext4. NFS also supports a server-to-server copy where the destination server mounts the source server and reads the data to be copied. Please don't break that either :) Anna > > We can undo the copy_file_range() syscall change of behavior from > v5.3 without regressing the NFS use case. > > We just need to be careful and look at all the affected code paths. > > Thanks, > Amir.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 1:29 PM Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@netapp.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 2:22 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 8:54 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > > Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 6:41 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> > > > >> >> Ugh. And I guess overlayfs may have a similar problem. > > > >> > > > > >> > Not exactly. > > > >> > Generally speaking, overlayfs should call vfs_copy_file_range() > > > >> > with the flags it got from layer above, so if called from nfsd it > > > >> > will allow cross fs copy and when called from syscall it won't. > > > >> > > > > >> > There are some corner cases where overlayfs could benefit from > > > >> > COPY_FILE_SPLICE (e.g. copy from lower file to upper file), but > > > >> > let's leave those for now. Just leave overlayfs code as is. > > > >> > > > >> Got it, thanks for clarifying. > > > >> > > > >> >> > 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? > > > >> > > > > >> > Grep for REMAP_FILE_ > > > >> > Same header file, same Documentation rst file. > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Cheers, > > > >> >> -- > > > >> >> Luis > > > >> >> > > > >> >> diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c > > > >> >> index 75f764b43418..341d315d2a96 100644 > > > >> >> --- a/fs/read_write.c > > > >> >> +++ b/fs/read_write.c > > > >> >> @@ -1383,6 +1383,13 @@ ssize_t generic_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > > > >> >> struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, > > > >> >> size_t len, unsigned int flags) > > > >> >> { > > > >> >> + if (!(flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) { > > > >> >> + if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) > > > >> >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > >> >> + else if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range != > > > >> >> + file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) > > > >> >> + return -EXDEV; > > > >> >> + } > > > >> > > > > >> > That looks strange, because you are duplicating the logic in > > > >> > do_copy_file_range(). Maybe better: > > > >> > > > > >> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & ~COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) > > > >> > return -EINVAL; > > > >> > if (flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE) > > > >> > return do_splice_direct(file_in, &pos_in, file_out, &pos_out, > > > >> > len > MAX_RW_COUNT ? MAX_RW_COUNT : len, 0); > > > >> > > > >> My initial reasoning for duplicating the logic in do_copy_file_range() was > > > >> to allow the generic_copy_file_range() callers to be left unmodified and > > > >> allow the filesystems to default to this implementation. > > > >> > > > >> With this change, I guess that the calls to generic_copy_file_range() from > > > >> the different filesystems can be dropped, as in my initial patch, as they > > > >> will always get -EINVAL. The other option would be to set the > > > >> COPY_FILE_SPLICE flag in those calls, but that would get us back to the > > > >> problem we're trying to solve. > > > > > > > > I don't understand the problem. > > > > > > > > What exactly is wrong with the code I suggested? > > > > Why should any filesystem be changed? > > > > > > > > Maybe I am missing something. > > > > > > Ok, I have to do a full brain reboot and start all over. > > > > > > Before that, I picked the code you suggested and tested it. I've mounted > > > a cephfs filesystem and used xfs_io to execute a 'copy_range' command > > > using /sys/kernel/debug/sched_features as source. The result was a > > > 0-sized file in cephfs. And the reason is thevfs_copy_file_range() > > > early exit in: > > > > > > if (len == 0) > > > return 0; > > > > > > 'len' is set in generic_copy_file_checks(). > > > > Good point.. I guess we will need to do all the checks earlier in > > generic_copy_file_checks() including the logic of: > > > > if (file_in->f_op->remap_file_range && > > file_inode(file_in)->i_sb == file_inode(file_out)->i_sb) > > > > > > > > > > This means that we're not solving the original problem anymore (probably > > > since v1 of this patch, haven't checked). > > > > > > Also, re-reading Trond's emails, I read: "... also disallowing the copy > > > from, say, an XFS formatted partition to an ext4 partition". Isn't that > > > *exactly* what we're trying to do here? I.e. _prevent_ these copies from > > > happening so that tracefs files can't be CFR'ed? > > > > > > > We want to address the report which means calls coming from > > copy_file_range() syscall. > > > > Trond's use case is vfs_copy_file_range() coming from nfsd. > > When he writes about copy from XFS to ext4, he means an > > NFS client is issuing server side copy (on same or different NFS mounts) > > and the NFS server is executing nfsd_copy_file_range() on a source > > file that happens to be on XFS and destination happens to be on ext4. > > NFS also supports a server-to-server copy where the destination server > mounts the source server and reads the data to be copied. Please don't > break that either :) This is a case we will eventually need to support for cifs (SMB3) as well. -- Thanks, Steve
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 9:31 PM Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 1:29 PM Anna Schumaker > <anna.schumaker@netapp.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 2:22 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 8:54 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 6:41 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > > > > >> > > > > >> >> Ugh. And I guess overlayfs may have a similar problem. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Not exactly. > > > > >> > Generally speaking, overlayfs should call vfs_copy_file_range() > > > > >> > with the flags it got from layer above, so if called from nfsd it > > > > >> > will allow cross fs copy and when called from syscall it won't. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > There are some corner cases where overlayfs could benefit from > > > > >> > COPY_FILE_SPLICE (e.g. copy from lower file to upper file), but > > > > >> > let's leave those for now. Just leave overlayfs code as is. > > > > >> > > > > >> Got it, thanks for clarifying. > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > 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? > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Grep for REMAP_FILE_ > > > > >> > Same header file, same Documentation rst file. > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Cheers, > > > > >> >> -- > > > > >> >> Luis > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c > > > > >> >> index 75f764b43418..341d315d2a96 100644 > > > > >> >> --- a/fs/read_write.c > > > > >> >> +++ b/fs/read_write.c > > > > >> >> @@ -1383,6 +1383,13 @@ ssize_t generic_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > > > > >> >> struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, > > > > >> >> size_t len, unsigned int flags) > > > > >> >> { > > > > >> >> + if (!(flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) { > > > > >> >> + if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) > > > > >> >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > >> >> + else if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range != > > > > >> >> + file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) > > > > >> >> + return -EXDEV; > > > > >> >> + } > > > > >> > > > > > >> > That looks strange, because you are duplicating the logic in > > > > >> > do_copy_file_range(). Maybe better: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & ~COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) > > > > >> > return -EINVAL; > > > > >> > if (flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE) > > > > >> > return do_splice_direct(file_in, &pos_in, file_out, &pos_out, > > > > >> > len > MAX_RW_COUNT ? MAX_RW_COUNT : len, 0); > > > > >> > > > > >> My initial reasoning for duplicating the logic in do_copy_file_range() was > > > > >> to allow the generic_copy_file_range() callers to be left unmodified and > > > > >> allow the filesystems to default to this implementation. > > > > >> > > > > >> With this change, I guess that the calls to generic_copy_file_range() from > > > > >> the different filesystems can be dropped, as in my initial patch, as they > > > > >> will always get -EINVAL. The other option would be to set the > > > > >> COPY_FILE_SPLICE flag in those calls, but that would get us back to the > > > > >> problem we're trying to solve. > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand the problem. > > > > > > > > > > What exactly is wrong with the code I suggested? > > > > > Why should any filesystem be changed? > > > > > > > > > > Maybe I am missing something. > > > > > > > > Ok, I have to do a full brain reboot and start all over. > > > > > > > > Before that, I picked the code you suggested and tested it. I've mounted > > > > a cephfs filesystem and used xfs_io to execute a 'copy_range' command > > > > using /sys/kernel/debug/sched_features as source. The result was a > > > > 0-sized file in cephfs. And the reason is thevfs_copy_file_range() > > > > early exit in: > > > > > > > > if (len == 0) > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > 'len' is set in generic_copy_file_checks(). > > > > > > Good point.. I guess we will need to do all the checks earlier in > > > generic_copy_file_checks() including the logic of: > > > > > > if (file_in->f_op->remap_file_range && > > > file_inode(file_in)->i_sb == file_inode(file_out)->i_sb) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This means that we're not solving the original problem anymore (probably > > > > since v1 of this patch, haven't checked). > > > > > > > > Also, re-reading Trond's emails, I read: "... also disallowing the copy > > > > from, say, an XFS formatted partition to an ext4 partition". Isn't that > > > > *exactly* what we're trying to do here? I.e. _prevent_ these copies from > > > > happening so that tracefs files can't be CFR'ed? > > > > > > > > > > We want to address the report which means calls coming from > > > copy_file_range() syscall. > > > > > > Trond's use case is vfs_copy_file_range() coming from nfsd. > > > When he writes about copy from XFS to ext4, he means an > > > NFS client is issuing server side copy (on same or different NFS mounts) > > > and the NFS server is executing nfsd_copy_file_range() on a source > > > file that happens to be on XFS and destination happens to be on ext4. > > > > NFS also supports a server-to-server copy where the destination server > > mounts the source server and reads the data to be copied. Please don't > > break that either :) > As long as the copy is via nfsd_copy_file_range() and not from the syscall it should not regress. > This is a case we will eventually need to support for cifs (SMB3) as well. > samba already does server side copy very well without needing any support from the kernel. nfsd also doesn't *need* to use vfs_copy_file_range() it can use kernel APIs like the loop in ovl_copy_up_data(). But it does, so we should not regress it. samba/nfsd can try to use copy_file_range() and it will work if the source/target fs support it. Otherwise, the server can perfectly well do the copy via other available interfaces, just like userspace copy tools. Thanks, Amir.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 1:40 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 9:31 PM Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 1:29 PM Anna Schumaker > > <anna.schumaker@netapp.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 2:22 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 8:54 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 6:41 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Ugh. And I guess overlayfs may have a similar problem. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Not exactly. > > > > > >> > Generally speaking, overlayfs should call vfs_copy_file_range() > > > > > >> > with the flags it got from layer above, so if called from nfsd it > > > > > >> > will allow cross fs copy and when called from syscall it won't. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > There are some corner cases where overlayfs could benefit from > > > > > >> > COPY_FILE_SPLICE (e.g. copy from lower file to upper file), but > > > > > >> > let's leave those for now. Just leave overlayfs code as is. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Got it, thanks for clarifying. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > 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? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Grep for REMAP_FILE_ > > > > > >> > Same header file, same Documentation rst file. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> Cheers, > > > > > >> >> -- > > > > > >> >> Luis > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c > > > > > >> >> index 75f764b43418..341d315d2a96 100644 > > > > > >> >> --- a/fs/read_write.c > > > > > >> >> +++ b/fs/read_write.c > > > > > >> >> @@ -1383,6 +1383,13 @@ ssize_t generic_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > > > > > >> >> struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, > > > > > >> >> size_t len, unsigned int flags) > > > > > >> >> { > > > > > >> >> + if (!(flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) { > > > > > >> >> + if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) > > > > > >> >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > > >> >> + else if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range != > > > > > >> >> + file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) > > > > > >> >> + return -EXDEV; > > > > > >> >> + } > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > That looks strange, because you are duplicating the logic in > > > > > >> > do_copy_file_range(). Maybe better: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & ~COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) > > > > > >> > return -EINVAL; > > > > > >> > if (flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE) > > > > > >> > return do_splice_direct(file_in, &pos_in, file_out, &pos_out, > > > > > >> > len > MAX_RW_COUNT ? MAX_RW_COUNT : len, 0); > > > > > >> > > > > > >> My initial reasoning for duplicating the logic in do_copy_file_range() was > > > > > >> to allow the generic_copy_file_range() callers to be left unmodified and > > > > > >> allow the filesystems to default to this implementation. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> With this change, I guess that the calls to generic_copy_file_range() from > > > > > >> the different filesystems can be dropped, as in my initial patch, as they > > > > > >> will always get -EINVAL. The other option would be to set the > > > > > >> COPY_FILE_SPLICE flag in those calls, but that would get us back to the > > > > > >> problem we're trying to solve. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand the problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > What exactly is wrong with the code I suggested? > > > > > > Why should any filesystem be changed? > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe I am missing something. > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I have to do a full brain reboot and start all over. > > > > > > > > > > Before that, I picked the code you suggested and tested it. I've mounted > > > > > a cephfs filesystem and used xfs_io to execute a 'copy_range' command > > > > > using /sys/kernel/debug/sched_features as source. The result was a > > > > > 0-sized file in cephfs. And the reason is thevfs_copy_file_range() > > > > > early exit in: > > > > > > > > > > if (len == 0) > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > > > 'len' is set in generic_copy_file_checks(). > > > > > > > > Good point.. I guess we will need to do all the checks earlier in > > > > generic_copy_file_checks() including the logic of: > > > > > > > > if (file_in->f_op->remap_file_range && > > > > file_inode(file_in)->i_sb == file_inode(file_out)->i_sb) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This means that we're not solving the original problem anymore (probably > > > > > since v1 of this patch, haven't checked). > > > > > > > > > > Also, re-reading Trond's emails, I read: "... also disallowing the copy > > > > > from, say, an XFS formatted partition to an ext4 partition". Isn't that > > > > > *exactly* what we're trying to do here? I.e. _prevent_ these copies from > > > > > happening so that tracefs files can't be CFR'ed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > We want to address the report which means calls coming from > > > > copy_file_range() syscall. > > > > > > > > Trond's use case is vfs_copy_file_range() coming from nfsd. > > > > When he writes about copy from XFS to ext4, he means an > > > > NFS client is issuing server side copy (on same or different NFS mounts) > > > > and the NFS server is executing nfsd_copy_file_range() on a source > > > > file that happens to be on XFS and destination happens to be on ext4. > > > > > > NFS also supports a server-to-server copy where the destination server > > > mounts the source server and reads the data to be copied. Please don't > > > break that either :) > > > > As long as the copy is via nfsd_copy_file_range() and not from the syscall > it should not regress. > > > This is a case we will eventually need to support for cifs (SMB3) as well. > > > > samba already does server side copy very well without needing any support > from the kernel. > > nfsd also doesn't *need* to use vfs_copy_file_range() it can use kernel APIs > like the loop in ovl_copy_up_data(). But it does, so we should not regress it. > > samba/nfsd can try to use copy_file_range() and it will work if the > source/target > fs support it. Otherwise, the server can perfectly well do the copy via other > available interfaces, just like userspace copy tools. I was thinking about cifsd ("ksmbd") the kernel server from Namjae/Sergey etc. which is making excellent progress. -- Thanks, Steve
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:42 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> 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. Not sure if you have the whole history, these links and discussion can help if you want to expand on the commit message: [1] http://issuetracker.google.com/issues/178332739 [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/1/25/64 [3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/1/26/1736 [4] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fsdevel/cover/20210212044405.4120619-1-drinkcat@chromium.org/ > 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. It goes beyond that, I think this also prevents copies within the same FS if copy_file_range is not implemented. Which is IMHO a good thing since this has been broken on procfs and friends ever since copy_file_range was implemented (but I assume that nobody ever hit that before cross-fs became available). > > Fixes: 5dae222a5ff0 ("vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across devices") > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20210212044405.4120619-1-drinkcat@chromium.org/ > Cc: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org> You could replace that with Reported-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org> > Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> > --- > Changes since v1 (after Amir review) > - restored do_copy_file_range() helper > - return -EOPNOTSUPP if fs doesn't implement CFR > - updated commit description > > fs/ceph/file.c | 21 +++----------------- > fs/cifs/cifsfs.c | 3 --- > fs/fuse/file.c | 21 +++----------------- > fs/nfs/nfs4file.c | 20 +++---------------- > fs/read_write.c | 49 ++++++++++------------------------------------ > include/linux/fs.h | 3 --- > 6 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 98 deletions(-) > [snip] > diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c > index 75f764b43418..b217cd62ae0d 100644 > --- a/fs/read_write.c > +++ b/fs/read_write.c > @@ -1358,40 +1358,12 @@ COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE4(sendfile64, int, out_fd, int, in_fd, > } > #endif > > -/** > - * generic_copy_file_range - copy data between two files > - * @file_in: file structure to read from > - * @pos_in: file offset to read from > - * @file_out: file structure to write data to > - * @pos_out: file offset to write data to > - * @len: amount of data to copy > - * @flags: copy flags > - * > - * This is a generic filesystem helper to copy data from one file to another. > - * It has no constraints on the source or destination file owners - the files > - * can belong to different superblocks and different filesystem types. Short > - * copies are allowed. > - * > - * This should be called from the @file_out filesystem, as per the > - * ->copy_file_range() method. > - * > - * Returns the number of bytes copied or a negative error indicating the > - * failure. > - */ > - > -ssize_t generic_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > - struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, > - size_t len, unsigned int flags) > -{ > - return do_splice_direct(file_in, &pos_in, file_out, &pos_out, > - len > MAX_RW_COUNT ? MAX_RW_COUNT : len, 0); > -} > -EXPORT_SYMBOL(generic_copy_file_range); > - > static ssize_t do_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, > size_t len, unsigned int flags) > { > + ssize_t ret = -EXDEV; > + > /* > * Although we now allow filesystems to handle cross sb copy, passing > * a file of the wrong filesystem type to filesystem driver can result > @@ -1400,14 +1372,14 @@ static ssize_t do_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > * several different file_system_type structures, but they all end up > * using the same ->copy_file_range() function pointer. > */ > - if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range && > - file_out->f_op->copy_file_range == file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) > - return file_out->f_op->copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, > - file_out, pos_out, > - len, flags); > + if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) > + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP; This doesn't work as the 0-filesize check is done before that in vfs_copy_file_range (so the syscall still returns 0, works fine if you comment out `if (len == 0)`). Also, you need to check for file_in->f_op->copy_file_range instead, the problem is if the _input_ filesystem doesn't report sizes or can't seek properly. > + else if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range == file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) > + ret = file_out->f_op->copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, > + file_out, pos_out, > + len, flags); > > - return generic_copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out, len, > - flags); > + return ret; > } > > /* > @@ -1514,8 +1486,7 @@ ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > } > > ret = do_copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out, len, > - flags); > - WARN_ON_ONCE(ret == -EOPNOTSUPP); > + flags); > done: > if (ret > 0) { > fsnotify_access(file_in);
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:15 PM Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 1:40 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 9:31 PM Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 1:29 PM Anna Schumaker > > > <anna.schumaker@netapp.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 2:22 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 8:54 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 6:41 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> Ugh. And I guess overlayfs may have a similar problem. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Not exactly. > > > > > > >> > Generally speaking, overlayfs should call vfs_copy_file_range() > > > > > > >> > with the flags it got from layer above, so if called from nfsd it > > > > > > >> > will allow cross fs copy and when called from syscall it won't. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > There are some corner cases where overlayfs could benefit from > > > > > > >> > COPY_FILE_SPLICE (e.g. copy from lower file to upper file), but > > > > > > >> > let's leave those for now. Just leave overlayfs code as is. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Got it, thanks for clarifying. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > 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? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Grep for REMAP_FILE_ > > > > > > >> > Same header file, same Documentation rst file. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> Cheers, > > > > > > >> >> -- > > > > > > >> >> Luis > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c > > > > > > >> >> index 75f764b43418..341d315d2a96 100644 > > > > > > >> >> --- a/fs/read_write.c > > > > > > >> >> +++ b/fs/read_write.c > > > > > > >> >> @@ -1383,6 +1383,13 @@ ssize_t generic_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > > > > > > >> >> struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, > > > > > > >> >> size_t len, unsigned int flags) > > > > > > >> >> { > > > > > > >> >> + if (!(flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) { > > > > > > >> >> + if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) > > > > > > >> >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > > > >> >> + else if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range != > > > > > > >> >> + file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) > > > > > > >> >> + return -EXDEV; > > > > > > >> >> + } > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > That looks strange, because you are duplicating the logic in > > > > > > >> > do_copy_file_range(). Maybe better: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & ~COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) > > > > > > >> > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > >> > if (flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE) > > > > > > >> > return do_splice_direct(file_in, &pos_in, file_out, &pos_out, > > > > > > >> > len > MAX_RW_COUNT ? MAX_RW_COUNT : len, 0); > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> My initial reasoning for duplicating the logic in do_copy_file_range() was > > > > > > >> to allow the generic_copy_file_range() callers to be left unmodified and > > > > > > >> allow the filesystems to default to this implementation. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> With this change, I guess that the calls to generic_copy_file_range() from > > > > > > >> the different filesystems can be dropped, as in my initial patch, as they > > > > > > >> will always get -EINVAL. The other option would be to set the > > > > > > >> COPY_FILE_SPLICE flag in those calls, but that would get us back to the > > > > > > >> problem we're trying to solve. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand the problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What exactly is wrong with the code I suggested? > > > > > > > Why should any filesystem be changed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe I am missing something. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I have to do a full brain reboot and start all over. > > > > > > > > > > > > Before that, I picked the code you suggested and tested it. I've mounted > > > > > > a cephfs filesystem and used xfs_io to execute a 'copy_range' command > > > > > > using /sys/kernel/debug/sched_features as source. The result was a > > > > > > 0-sized file in cephfs. And the reason is thevfs_copy_file_range() > > > > > > early exit in: > > > > > > > > > > > > if (len == 0) > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > > > > > 'len' is set in generic_copy_file_checks(). > > > > > > > > > > Good point.. I guess we will need to do all the checks earlier in > > > > > generic_copy_file_checks() including the logic of: > > > > > > > > > > if (file_in->f_op->remap_file_range && > > > > > file_inode(file_in)->i_sb == file_inode(file_out)->i_sb) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This means that we're not solving the original problem anymore (probably > > > > > > since v1 of this patch, haven't checked). > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, re-reading Trond's emails, I read: "... also disallowing the copy > > > > > > from, say, an XFS formatted partition to an ext4 partition". Isn't that > > > > > > *exactly* what we're trying to do here? I.e. _prevent_ these copies from > > > > > > happening so that tracefs files can't be CFR'ed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We want to address the report which means calls coming from > > > > > copy_file_range() syscall. > > > > > > > > > > Trond's use case is vfs_copy_file_range() coming from nfsd. > > > > > When he writes about copy from XFS to ext4, he means an > > > > > NFS client is issuing server side copy (on same or different NFS mounts) > > > > > and the NFS server is executing nfsd_copy_file_range() on a source > > > > > file that happens to be on XFS and destination happens to be on ext4. > > > > > > > > NFS also supports a server-to-server copy where the destination server > > > > mounts the source server and reads the data to be copied. Please don't > > > > break that either :) > > > > > > > As long as the copy is via nfsd_copy_file_range() and not from the syscall > > it should not regress. > > > > > This is a case we will eventually need to support for cifs (SMB3) as well. > > > > > > > samba already does server side copy very well without needing any support > > from the kernel. > > > > nfsd also doesn't *need* to use vfs_copy_file_range() it can use kernel APIs > > like the loop in ovl_copy_up_data(). But it does, so we should not regress it. > > > > samba/nfsd can try to use copy_file_range() and it will work if the > > source/target > > fs support it. Otherwise, the server can perfectly well do the copy via other > > available interfaces, just like userspace copy tools. > > I was thinking about cifsd ("ksmbd") the kernel server from > Namjae/Sergey etc. which is making excellent progress. > You are missing my point. Never mind which server. The server does not *need* to rely on vfs_copy_file_range() to copy files from XFS to ext4. The server is very capable of implementing the fallback generic copy in case source/target fs do not support native {copy,remap}_file_range(). w.r.t semantics of copy_file_range() syscall vs. the fallback to userespace 'cp' tool (check source file size before copy or not), please note that the semantics of CIFS_IOC_COPYCHUNK_FILE are that of the former: rc = cifs_file_copychunk_range(xid, src_file.file, 0, dst_file, 0, src_inode->i_size, 0); It will copy zero bytes if advertised source file size if zero. NFS server side copy semantics are currently de-facto the same because both the client and the server will have to pass through this line in vfs_copy_file_range(): if (len == 0) return 0; IMO, and this opinion was voiced by several other filesystem developers, the shortend copy semantics are the correct semantics for copy_file_range() syscall as well as for vfs_copy_file_range() for internal kernel users. I guess what this means is that if the 'cp' tool ever tries an opportunistic copy_file_range() syscall (e.g. --cfr=auto), it may result in zero size copy. Thanks, Amir.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 7:25 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: > > A regression has been reported by Nicolas Boichat, found while using the > copy_file_range syscall to copy a tracefs file. Before commit > 5dae222a5ff0 ("vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across devices") the > kernel would return -EXDEV to userspace when trying to copy a file across > different filesystems. After this commit, the syscall doesn't fail anymore > and instead returns zero (zero bytes copied), as this file's content is > generated on-the-fly and thus reports a size of zero. > > This patch restores some cross-filesystems copy restrictions that existed > prior to commit 5dae222a5ff0 ("vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across > devices"). It also introduces a flag (COPY_FILE_SPLICE) that can be used > by filesystems calling directly into the vfs copy_file_range to override > these restrictions. Right now, only NFS needs to set this flag. > > Fixes: 5dae222a5ff0 ("vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across devices") > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20210212044405.4120619-1-drinkcat@chromium.org/ > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/CANMq1KDZuxir2LM5jOTm0xx+BnvW=ZmpsG47CyHFJwnw7zSX6Q@mail.gmail.com/ > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20210126135012.1.If45b7cdc3ff707bc1efa17f5366057d60603c45f@changeid/ > Reported-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org> > Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> > --- > Ok, I've tried to address all the issues and comments. Hopefully this v3 > is a bit closer to the final fix. > > Changes since v2 > - do all the required checks earlier, in generic_copy_file_checks(), > adding new checks for ->remap_file_range > - new COPY_FILE_SPLICE flag > - don't remove filesystem's fallback to generic_copy_file_range() > - updated commit changelog (and subject) > Changes since v1 (after Amir review) > - restored do_copy_file_range() helper > - return -EOPNOTSUPP if fs doesn't implement CFR > - updated commit description > > fs/nfsd/vfs.c | 3 ++- > fs/read_write.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > include/linux/fs.h | 7 +++++++ > 3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/vfs.c b/fs/nfsd/vfs.c > index 04937e51de56..14e55822c223 100644 > --- a/fs/nfsd/vfs.c > +++ b/fs/nfsd/vfs.c > @@ -578,7 +578,8 @@ ssize_t nfsd_copy_file_range(struct file *src, u64 src_pos, struct file *dst, > * 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); > + return vfs_copy_file_range(src, src_pos, dst, dst_pos, count, > + COPY_FILE_SPLICE); > } > > __be32 nfsd4_vfs_fallocate(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct svc_fh *fhp, > diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c > index 75f764b43418..40a16003fb05 100644 > --- a/fs/read_write.c > +++ b/fs/read_write.c > @@ -1410,6 +1410,33 @@ static ssize_t do_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > flags); > } > > +/* > + * This helper function checks whether copy_file_range can actually be used, > + * depending on the source and destination filesystems being the same. > + * > + * In-kernel callers may set COPY_FILE_SPLICE to override these checks. > + */ > +static int fops_copy_file_checks(struct file *file_in, struct file *file_out, > + unsigned int flags) > +{ > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & ~COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + if (flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE) > + return 0; > + /* > + * We got here from userspace, so forbid copies if copy_file_range isn't > + * implemented or if we're doing a cross-fs copy. > + */ Suggest: if (!file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) { if (file_in->f_op->copy_file_range != file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) return -EXDEV; } else if (file_in->f_op->remap_file_range) { if (file_inode(file_in)->i_sb != file_inode(file_out)->i_sb) return -EXDEV; } else { return -EOPNOTSUPP; } return 0; } > + > /* > * Performs necessary checks before doing a file copy > * > @@ -1427,6 +1454,14 @@ static int generic_copy_file_checks(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > loff_t size_in; > int ret; > > + /* Only check f_ops if we're not trying to clone */ > + if (!file_in->f_op->remap_file_range || > + (file_inode(file_in)->i_sb == file_inode(file_out)->i_sb)) { > + ret = fops_copy_file_checks(file_in, file_out, flags); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + } > + and then you don't need this special casing of clone here. > ret = generic_file_rw_checks(file_in, file_out); > if (ret) > return ret; > @@ -1474,9 +1509,6 @@ ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > { > ssize_t ret; > > - if (flags != 0) > - return -EINVAL; > - > ret = generic_copy_file_checks(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out, &len, > flags); > if (unlikely(ret)) > @@ -1511,6 +1543,9 @@ ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > ret = cloned; > goto done; > } > + ret = fops_copy_file_checks(file_in, file_out, flags); > + if (ret) > + return ret; and you don't need this here (right?) and you can remove the checks for same i_sb and same copy_file_range op that were already tested from vfs_copy_file_range(). Hope I am not missing anything. Thanks, Amir.
On Feb 17, 2021, at 1:08 AM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote: > > You are missing my point. > Never mind which server. The server does not *need* to rely on > vfs_copy_file_range() to copy files from XFS to ext4. > The server is very capable of implementing the fallback generic copy > in case source/target fs do not support native {copy,remap}_file_range(). > > w.r.t semantics of copy_file_range() syscall vs. the fallback to userespace > 'cp' tool (check source file size before copy or not), please note that the > semantics of CIFS_IOC_COPYCHUNK_FILE are that of the former: > > rc = cifs_file_copychunk_range(xid, src_file.file, 0, dst_file, 0, > src_inode->i_size, 0); > > It will copy zero bytes if advertised source file size if zero. > > NFS server side copy semantics are currently de-facto the same > because both the client and the server will have to pass through this > line in vfs_copy_file_range(): > > if (len == 0) > return 0; > > IMO, and this opinion was voiced by several other filesystem developers, > the shortend copy semantics are the correct semantics for copy_file_range() > syscall as well as for vfs_copy_file_range() for internal kernel users. > > I guess what this means is that if the 'cp' tool ever tries an opportunistic > copy_file_range() syscall (e.g. --cfr=auto), it may result in zero size copy. Having a syscall that does the "wrong thing" when called on two files doesn't make sense. Expecting userspace to check whether source/target files supports CFR is also not practical. This is trivial for the kernel to determine and return -EOPNOTSUPP to the caller if the source file (procfs/sysfs/etc) does not work with CFR properly. Applications must already handle -EOPNOTSUPP with a fallback, but expecting all applications that may call copy_file_range() to be properly coded to handle corner cases is just asking for trouble. That is doubly true given that an existing widely-used tool like cp and mv are using this syscall if it is available in the kernel. Cheers, Andreas
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 05:50:35PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Feb 17, 2021, at 1:08 AM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You are missing my point. > > Never mind which server. The server does not *need* to rely on > > vfs_copy_file_range() to copy files from XFS to ext4. > > The server is very capable of implementing the fallback generic copy > > in case source/target fs do not support native {copy,remap}_file_range(). > > > > w.r.t semantics of copy_file_range() syscall vs. the fallback to userespace > > 'cp' tool (check source file size before copy or not), please note that the > > semantics of CIFS_IOC_COPYCHUNK_FILE are that of the former: > > > > rc = cifs_file_copychunk_range(xid, src_file.file, 0, dst_file, 0, > > src_inode->i_size, 0); > > > > It will copy zero bytes if advertised source file size if zero. > > > > NFS server side copy semantics are currently de-facto the same > > because both the client and the server will have to pass through this > > line in vfs_copy_file_range(): > > > > if (len == 0) > > return 0; > > > > IMO, and this opinion was voiced by several other filesystem developers, > > the shortend copy semantics are the correct semantics for copy_file_range() > > syscall as well as for vfs_copy_file_range() for internal kernel users. > > > > I guess what this means is that if the 'cp' tool ever tries an opportunistic > > copy_file_range() syscall (e.g. --cfr=auto), it may result in zero size copy. > > Having a syscall that does the "wrong thing" when called on two files > doesn't make sense. Expecting userspace to check whether source/target > files supports CFR is also not practical. This is trivial for the > kernel to determine and return -EOPNOTSUPP to the caller if the source > file (procfs/sysfs/etc) does not work with CFR properly. How does the kernel "know" that a specific file in a specific filesystem will not work with CFR "properly"? That goes back to the original patch which tried to label each and every filesystem type with a "supported/not supported" type of flag, which was going to be a mess, especially as it seems that this might be a file-specific thing, not a filesystem-specific thing. The goal of the patch _should_ be that the kernel figure it out itself, but so far no one seems to be able to explain how that can be done :( So, any hints? thanks, greg k-h
Looks good:
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
This whole idea of cross-device copie has always been a horrible idea,
and I've been arguing against it since the patches were posted.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 9:42 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: > > Looks good: > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > > This whole idea of cross-device copie has always been a horrible idea, > and I've been arguing against it since the patches were posted. Ok. I'm good with this v2 as well, but need to add the fallback to do_splice_direct() in nfsd_copy_file_range(), because this patch breaks it. And the commit message of v3 is better in describing the reported issue. Thanks, Amir.
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 9:42 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: >> >> Looks good: >> >> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> >> >> This whole idea of cross-device copie has always been a horrible idea, >> and I've been arguing against it since the patches were posted. > > Ok. I'm good with this v2 as well, but need to add the fallback to > do_splice_direct() > in nfsd_copy_file_range(), because this patch breaks it. > > And the commit message of v3 is better in describing the reported issue. Except that, as I said in a previous email, v2 doesn't really fix the issue: all the checks need to be done earlier in generic_copy_file_checks(). I'll work on getting v4, based on v2 and but moving the checks and implementing your review suggestions to v3 (plus this nfs change). Cheers, -- Luis
Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> writes: > Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 9:42 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: >>> >>> Looks good: >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> >>> >>> This whole idea of cross-device copie has always been a horrible idea, >>> and I've been arguing against it since the patches were posted. >> >> Ok. I'm good with this v2 as well, but need to add the fallback to >> do_splice_direct() >> in nfsd_copy_file_range(), because this patch breaks it. >> >> And the commit message of v3 is better in describing the reported issue. > > Except that, as I said in a previous email, v2 doesn't really fix the > issue: all the checks need to be done earlier in generic_copy_file_checks(). > > I'll work on getting v4, based on v2 and but moving the checks and > implementing your review suggestions to v3 (plus this nfs change). There's something else: The filesystems (nfs, ceph, cifs, fuse) rely on the fallback to generic_copy_file_range() if something's wrong. And this "something's wrong" is fs specific. For example: in ceph it is possible to offload the file copy to the OSDs even if the files are in different filesystems as long as these filesystems are on the *same* ceph cluster. If the copy being done is across two different clusters, then the copy reverts to splice. This means that the boilerplate code being removed in v2 of this patch needs to be restored and replace by: ret = __ceph_copy_file_range(src_file, src_off, dst_file, dst_off, len, flags); if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP || ret == -EXDEV) ret = do_splice_direct(src_file, &src_off, dst_file, &dst_off, len > MAX_RW_COUNT ? MAX_RW_COUNT : len, flags); return ret; A quick look at the other filesystems code indicate similar patterns. Since at this point we've gone through all the syscall checks already, calling do_splice_direct() shouldn't be a huge change. But I may be missing something. Again. Which is quite likely :-) Cheers, -- Luis
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 2:14 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: > > Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> writes: > > > Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 9:42 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Looks good: > >>> > >>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > >>> > >>> This whole idea of cross-device copie has always been a horrible idea, > >>> and I've been arguing against it since the patches were posted. > >> > >> Ok. I'm good with this v2 as well, but need to add the fallback to > >> do_splice_direct() > >> in nfsd_copy_file_range(), because this patch breaks it. > >> > >> And the commit message of v3 is better in describing the reported issue. > > > > Except that, as I said in a previous email, v2 doesn't really fix the > > issue: all the checks need to be done earlier in generic_copy_file_checks(). > > > > I'll work on getting v4, based on v2 and but moving the checks and > > implementing your review suggestions to v3 (plus this nfs change). > > There's something else: > > The filesystems (nfs, ceph, cifs, fuse) rely on the fallback to > generic_copy_file_range() if something's wrong. And this "something's > wrong" is fs specific. For example: in ceph it is possible to offload the > file copy to the OSDs even if the files are in different filesystems as > long as these filesystems are on the *same* ceph cluster. If the copy > being done is across two different clusters, then the copy reverts to > splice. This means that the boilerplate code being removed in v2 of this > patch needs to be restored and replace by: > > ret = __ceph_copy_file_range(src_file, src_off, dst_file, dst_off, > len, flags); > > if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP || ret == -EXDEV) > ret = do_splice_direct(src_file, &src_off, dst_file, &dst_off, > len > MAX_RW_COUNT ? MAX_RW_COUNT : len, > flags); > return ret; > Why not leave the filesystem code as is and leave the generic_copy_file_range() helper? Less churn. Then nfsd_copy_file_range() can also fallback to generic_copy_file_range(). Thanks, Amir.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 4:35 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: > > A regression has been reported by Nicolas Boichat, found while using the > copy_file_range syscall to copy a tracefs file. Before commit > 5dae222a5ff0 ("vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across devices") the > kernel would return -EXDEV to userspace when trying to copy a file across > different filesystems. After this commit, the syscall doesn't fail anymore > and instead returns zero (zero bytes copied), as this file's content is > generated on-the-fly and thus reports a size of zero. > > This patch restores some cross-filesystem copy restrictions that existed > prior to commit 5dae222a5ff0 ("vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across > devices"). Filesystems are still allowed to fall-back to the VFS > generic_copy_file_range() implementation, but that has now to be done > explicitly. > > nfsd is also modified to use generic_copy_file_range() instead of > vfs_copy_file_range() so that it can still fall-back to splice without going > through all the checks. > > Fixes: 5dae222a5ff0 ("vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across devices") > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20210212044405.4120619-1-drinkcat@chromium.org/ > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/CANMq1KDZuxir2LM5jOTm0xx+BnvW=ZmpsG47CyHFJwnw7zSX6Q@mail.gmail.com/ > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20210126135012.1.If45b7cdc3ff707bc1efa17f5366057d60603c45f@changeid/ > Reported-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org> > Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> > --- > And here's v4. I'd like to request help for testing. I know Nicolas is > doing that (thanks! and thanks for the reviews). But it would be great to > get at least the nfs code tested. Olga, can you help here? > > Changes since v3 > - dropped the COPY_FILE_SPLICE flag > - kept the f_op's checks early in generic_copy_file_checks, implementing > Amir's suggestions > - modified nfsd to use generic_copy_file_range() > Changes since v2 > - do all the required checks earlier, in generic_copy_file_checks(), > adding new checks for ->remap_file_range > - new COPY_FILE_SPLICE flag > - don't remove filesystem's fallback to generic_copy_file_range() > - updated commit changelog (and subject) > Changes since v1 (after Amir review) > - restored do_copy_file_range() helper > - return -EOPNOTSUPP if fs doesn't implement CFR > - updated commit description > > fs/nfsd/vfs.c | 2 +- > fs/read_write.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/vfs.c b/fs/nfsd/vfs.c > index 04937e51de56..49dd28ee2602 100644 > --- a/fs/nfsd/vfs.c > +++ b/fs/nfsd/vfs.c > @@ -578,7 +578,7 @@ ssize_t nfsd_copy_file_range(struct file *src, u64 src_pos, struct file *dst, > * 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); > + return generic_copy_file_range(src, src_pos, dst, dst_pos, count, 0); That is not the desired change. It should try vfs_copy_file_range() and fallback to generic_copy_file_range() for EXDEV and EOPNOTSUPP. I will explain why. This code runs on nfs server. The nfs client requested remote server side copy offload using nfs4_copy_file_range() and remote request is handled here. It is not enough to generic_copy_file_range() on the server because the source and destination themselves can be on yet another remote location (cifs/ceph/nfs), so this is why calling vfs_copy_file_range() here is important. At least that is my understanding. Unlike userspace copy fallback, if the server returns -EXDEV the client will need to transfer the data over the network. That is why the generic_copy_file_range() fallback is important. > } > > __be32 nfsd4_vfs_fallocate(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct svc_fh *fhp, > diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c > index 75f764b43418..214d44f7cbfa 100644 > --- a/fs/read_write.c > +++ b/fs/read_write.c > @@ -1388,28 +1388,6 @@ ssize_t generic_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(generic_copy_file_range); > > -static ssize_t do_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > - struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, > - size_t len, unsigned int flags) > -{ > - /* > - * Although we now allow filesystems to handle cross sb copy, passing > - * a file of the wrong filesystem type to filesystem driver can result > - * in an attempt to dereference the wrong type of ->private_data, so > - * avoid doing that until we really have a good reason. NFS defines > - * several different file_system_type structures, but they all end up > - * using the same ->copy_file_range() function pointer. > - */ > - if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range && > - file_out->f_op->copy_file_range == file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) > - return file_out->f_op->copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, > - file_out, pos_out, > - len, flags); > - > - return generic_copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out, len, > - flags); > -} > - > /* > * Performs necessary checks before doing a file copy > * > @@ -1427,6 +1405,25 @@ static int generic_copy_file_checks(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > loff_t size_in; > int ret; > > + /* > + * Although we now allow filesystems to handle cross sb copy, passing > + * a file of the wrong filesystem type to filesystem driver can result > + * in an attempt to dereference the wrong type of ->private_data, so > + * avoid doing that until we really have a good reason. NFS defines > + * several different file_system_type structures, but they all end up > + * using the same ->copy_file_range() function pointer. > + */ > + if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) { > + if (file_in->f_op->copy_file_range != > + file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) > + return -EXDEV; > + } else if (file_in->f_op->remap_file_range) { > + if (file_inode(file_in)->i_sb != file_inode(file_out)->i_sb) > + return -EXDEV; > + } else { > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + } > + > ret = generic_file_rw_checks(file_in, file_out); > if (ret) > return ret; > @@ -1499,8 +1496,7 @@ ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > * Try cloning first, this is supported by more file systems, and > * more efficient if both clone and copy are supported (e.g. NFS). > */ > - if (file_in->f_op->remap_file_range && > - file_inode(file_in)->i_sb == file_inode(file_out)->i_sb) { > + if (file_in->f_op->remap_file_range) { > loff_t cloned; > > cloned = file_in->f_op->remap_file_range(file_in, pos_in, > @@ -1513,9 +1509,9 @@ ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, > } > } > > - ret = do_copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out, len, > - flags); > - WARN_ON_ONCE(ret == -EOPNOTSUPP); > + ret = file_out->f_op->copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, > + file_out, pos_out, > + len, flags); I see you have made an assumption here that if we did not clone then file_out->f_op->copy_file_range must be valid. It is not true. file_out->f_op->copy_file_range could be NULL and we got here becauses remap_file_range was attempted and failed. So you still need to check for non-NULL file_out->f_op->copy_file_range here just like it was before the regressing commit. Otherwise, looks ok to me, but without NFS testing we won't know for sure It's a tricky one... Thanks, Amir.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:16 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: > > A regression has been reported by Nicolas Boichat, found while using the > copy_file_range syscall to copy a tracefs file. Before commit > 5dae222a5ff0 ("vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across devices") the > kernel would return -EXDEV to userspace when trying to copy a file across > different filesystems. After this commit, the syscall doesn't fail anymore > and instead returns zero (zero bytes copied), as this file's content is > generated on-the-fly and thus reports a size of zero. > > This patch restores some cross-filesystem copy restrictions that existed > prior to commit 5dae222a5ff0 ("vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across > devices"). Filesystems are still allowed to fall-back to the VFS > generic_copy_file_range() implementation, but that has now to be done > explicitly. > > nfsd is also modified to fall-back into generic_copy_file_range() in case > vfs_copy_file_range() fails with -EOPNOTSUPP or -EXDEV. > > Fixes: 5dae222a5ff0 ("vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across devices") > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20210212044405.4120619-1-drinkcat@chromium.org/ > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/CANMq1KDZuxir2LM5jOTm0xx+BnvW=ZmpsG47CyHFJwnw7zSX6Q@mail.gmail.com/ > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20210126135012.1.If45b7cdc3ff707bc1efa17f5366057d60603c45f@changeid/ > Reported-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org> > Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> > --- > And v5! Sorry. Sure, it makes sense to go through the all the vfs_cfr() > checks first. You missed my other comment on v4... not checking NULL copy_file_range case. Thanks, Amir.
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:16 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote: >> >> A regression has been reported by Nicolas Boichat, found while using the >> copy_file_range syscall to copy a tracefs file. Before commit >> 5dae222a5ff0 ("vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across devices") the >> kernel would return -EXDEV to userspace when trying to copy a file across >> different filesystems. After this commit, the syscall doesn't fail anymore >> and instead returns zero (zero bytes copied), as this file's content is >> generated on-the-fly and thus reports a size of zero. >> >> This patch restores some cross-filesystem copy restrictions that existed >> prior to commit 5dae222a5ff0 ("vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across >> devices"). Filesystems are still allowed to fall-back to the VFS >> generic_copy_file_range() implementation, but that has now to be done >> explicitly. >> >> nfsd is also modified to fall-back into generic_copy_file_range() in case >> vfs_copy_file_range() fails with -EOPNOTSUPP or -EXDEV. >> >> Fixes: 5dae222a5ff0 ("vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across devices") >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20210212044405.4120619-1-drinkcat@chromium.org/ >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/CANMq1KDZuxir2LM5jOTm0xx+BnvW=ZmpsG47CyHFJwnw7zSX6Q@mail.gmail.com/ >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20210126135012.1.If45b7cdc3ff707bc1efa17f5366057d60603c45f@changeid/ >> Reported-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org> >> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> >> --- >> And v5! Sorry. Sure, it makes sense to go through the all the vfs_cfr() >> checks first. > > You missed my other comment on v4... > > not checking NULL copy_file_range case. Ah, yeah I did missed it. I'll follow up with yet another revision. Cheers, -- Luis
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 4:03 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 9:42 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > Looks good: > > > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > > > > This whole idea of cross-device copie has always been a horrible idea, > > and I've been arguing against it since the patches were posted. > > Ok. I'm good with this v2 as well, but need to add the fallback to > do_splice_direct() > in nfsd_copy_file_range(), because this patch breaks it. Interestingly, for ksmbd (cifsd) looks like they already do splice not copy_file_range -- Thanks, Steve
diff --git a/fs/ceph/file.c b/fs/ceph/file.c index 209535d5b8d3..639bd7bfaea9 100644 --- a/fs/ceph/file.c +++ b/fs/ceph/file.c @@ -2261,9 +2261,9 @@ static ssize_t ceph_do_objects_copy(struct ceph_inode_info *src_ci, u64 *src_off return bytes; } -static ssize_t __ceph_copy_file_range(struct file *src_file, loff_t src_off, - struct file *dst_file, loff_t dst_off, - size_t len, unsigned int flags) +static ssize_t ceph_copy_file_range(struct file *src_file, loff_t src_off, + struct file *dst_file, loff_t dst_off, + size_t len, unsigned int flags) { struct inode *src_inode = file_inode(src_file); struct inode *dst_inode = file_inode(dst_file); @@ -2456,21 +2456,6 @@ static ssize_t __ceph_copy_file_range(struct file *src_file, loff_t src_off, return ret; } -static ssize_t ceph_copy_file_range(struct file *src_file, loff_t src_off, - struct file *dst_file, loff_t dst_off, - size_t len, unsigned int flags) -{ - ssize_t ret; - - ret = __ceph_copy_file_range(src_file, src_off, dst_file, dst_off, - len, flags); - - if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP || ret == -EXDEV) - ret = generic_copy_file_range(src_file, src_off, dst_file, - dst_off, len, flags); - return ret; -} - const struct file_operations ceph_file_fops = { .open = ceph_open, .release = ceph_release, diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c index ab883e84e116..7aa3d20f21c0 100644 --- a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c +++ b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c @@ -1229,9 +1229,6 @@ static ssize_t cifs_copy_file_range(struct file *src_file, loff_t off, len, flags); free_xid(xid); - if (rc == -EOPNOTSUPP || rc == -EXDEV) - rc = generic_copy_file_range(src_file, off, dst_file, - destoff, len, flags); return rc; } diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c index 8cccecb55fb8..0dd703278e49 100644 --- a/fs/fuse/file.c +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c @@ -3330,9 +3330,9 @@ static long fuse_file_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset, return err; } -static ssize_t __fuse_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, - struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, - size_t len, unsigned int flags) +static ssize_t fuse_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, + struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, + size_t len, unsigned int flags) { struct fuse_file *ff_in = file_in->private_data; struct fuse_file *ff_out = file_out->private_data; @@ -3439,21 +3439,6 @@ static ssize_t __fuse_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, return err; } -static ssize_t fuse_copy_file_range(struct file *src_file, loff_t src_off, - struct file *dst_file, loff_t dst_off, - size_t len, unsigned int flags) -{ - ssize_t ret; - - ret = __fuse_copy_file_range(src_file, src_off, dst_file, dst_off, - len, flags); - - if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP || ret == -EXDEV) - ret = generic_copy_file_range(src_file, src_off, dst_file, - dst_off, len, flags); - return ret; -} - static const struct file_operations fuse_file_operations = { .llseek = fuse_file_llseek, .read_iter = fuse_file_read_iter, diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4file.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4file.c index 57b3821d975a..60998209e310 100644 --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4file.c +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4file.c @@ -133,9 +133,9 @@ nfs4_file_flush(struct file *file, fl_owner_t id) } #ifdef CONFIG_NFS_V4_2 -static ssize_t __nfs4_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, - struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, - size_t count, unsigned int flags) +static ssize_t nfs4_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, + struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, + size_t count, unsigned int flags) { struct nfs42_copy_notify_res *cn_resp = NULL; struct nl4_server *nss = NULL; @@ -189,20 +189,6 @@ static ssize_t __nfs4_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, return ret; } -static ssize_t nfs4_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, - struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, - size_t count, unsigned int flags) -{ - ssize_t ret; - - ret = __nfs4_copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out, count, - flags); - if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP || ret == -EXDEV) - ret = generic_copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, file_out, - pos_out, count, flags); - return ret; -} - static loff_t nfs4_file_llseek(struct file *filep, loff_t offset, int whence) { loff_t ret; diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c index 75f764b43418..b217cd62ae0d 100644 --- a/fs/read_write.c +++ b/fs/read_write.c @@ -1358,40 +1358,12 @@ COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE4(sendfile64, int, out_fd, int, in_fd, } #endif -/** - * generic_copy_file_range - copy data between two files - * @file_in: file structure to read from - * @pos_in: file offset to read from - * @file_out: file structure to write data to - * @pos_out: file offset to write data to - * @len: amount of data to copy - * @flags: copy flags - * - * This is a generic filesystem helper to copy data from one file to another. - * It has no constraints on the source or destination file owners - the files - * can belong to different superblocks and different filesystem types. Short - * copies are allowed. - * - * This should be called from the @file_out filesystem, as per the - * ->copy_file_range() method. - * - * Returns the number of bytes copied or a negative error indicating the - * failure. - */ - -ssize_t generic_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, - struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, - size_t len, unsigned int flags) -{ - return do_splice_direct(file_in, &pos_in, file_out, &pos_out, - len > MAX_RW_COUNT ? MAX_RW_COUNT : len, 0); -} -EXPORT_SYMBOL(generic_copy_file_range); - static ssize_t do_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, size_t len, unsigned int flags) { + ssize_t ret = -EXDEV; + /* * Although we now allow filesystems to handle cross sb copy, passing * a file of the wrong filesystem type to filesystem driver can result @@ -1400,14 +1372,14 @@ static ssize_t do_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, * several different file_system_type structures, but they all end up * using the same ->copy_file_range() function pointer. */ - if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range && - file_out->f_op->copy_file_range == file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) - return file_out->f_op->copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, - file_out, pos_out, - len, flags); + if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP; + else if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range == file_in->f_op->copy_file_range) + ret = file_out->f_op->copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, + file_out, pos_out, + len, flags); - return generic_copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out, len, - flags); + return ret; } /* @@ -1514,8 +1486,7 @@ ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, } ret = do_copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out, len, - flags); - WARN_ON_ONCE(ret == -EOPNOTSUPP); + flags); done: if (ret > 0) { fsnotify_access(file_in); diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h index fd47deea7c17..3aaf627be409 100644 --- a/include/linux/fs.h +++ b/include/linux/fs.h @@ -1910,9 +1910,6 @@ extern ssize_t vfs_read(struct file *, char __user *, size_t, loff_t *); extern ssize_t vfs_write(struct file *, const char __user *, size_t, loff_t *); extern ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *, loff_t , struct file *, loff_t, size_t, unsigned int); -extern ssize_t generic_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, - struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, - size_t len, unsigned int flags); extern int generic_remap_file_range_prep(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, loff_t *count,
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@chromium.org/ Cc: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> --- Changes since v1 (after Amir review) - restored do_copy_file_range() helper - return -EOPNOTSUPP if fs doesn't implement CFR - updated commit description fs/ceph/file.c | 21 +++----------------- fs/cifs/cifsfs.c | 3 --- fs/fuse/file.c | 21 +++----------------- fs/nfs/nfs4file.c | 20 +++---------------- fs/read_write.c | 49 ++++++++++------------------------------------ include/linux/fs.h | 3 --- 6 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 98 deletions(-)