Re: [PATCH v2] ceph: invalidate pages when doing DIO in encrypted inodes

From: Xiubo Li
Date: Wed Apr 06 2022 - 09:48:03 EST



On 4/6/22 6:57 PM, Luís Henriques wrote:
Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

On 4/1/22 9:32 PM, Luís Henriques wrote:
When doing DIO on an encrypted node, we need to invalidate the page cache in
the range being written to, otherwise the cache will include invalid data.

Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@xxxxxxx>
---
fs/ceph/file.c | 11 ++++++++++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Changes since v1:
- Replaced truncate_inode_pages_range() by invalidate_inode_pages2_range
- Call fscache_invalidate with FSCACHE_INVAL_DIO_WRITE if we're doing DIO

Note: I'm not really sure this last change is required, it doesn't really
affect generic/647 result, but seems to be the most correct.

diff --git a/fs/ceph/file.c b/fs/ceph/file.c
index 5072570c2203..b2743c342305 100644
--- a/fs/ceph/file.c
+++ b/fs/ceph/file.c
@@ -1605,7 +1605,7 @@ ceph_sync_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from, loff_t pos,
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
- ceph_fscache_invalidate(inode, false);
+ ceph_fscache_invalidate(inode, (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DIRECT));
ret = invalidate_inode_pages2_range(inode->i_mapping,
pos >> PAGE_SHIFT,
(pos + count - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
The above has already invalidated the pages, why doesn't it work ?
I suspect the reason is because later on we loop through the number of
pages, call copy_page_from_iter() and then ceph_fscrypt_encrypt_pages().

Checked the 'copy_page_from_iter()', it will do the kmap for the pages but will kunmap them again later. And they shouldn't update the i_mapping if I didn't miss something important.

For 'ceph_fscrypt_encrypt_pages()' it will encrypt/dencrypt the context inplace, IMO if it needs to map the page and it should also unmap it just like in 'copy_page_from_iter()'.

I thought it possibly be when we need to do RMW, it may will update the i_mapping when reading contents, but I checked the code didn't find any place is doing this. So I am wondering where tha page caches come from ? If that page caches really from reading the contents, then we should discard it instead of flushing it back ?

BTW, what's the problem without this fixing ? xfstest fails ?


-- Xiubo

Cheers,