fuse: writepages: crop secondary requests

If writeback happens while fuse is in FUSE_NOWRITE condition, the request
will be queued but not processed immediately (see fuse_flush_writepages()).
Until FUSE_NOWRITE becomes relaxed, more writebacks can happen.  They will
be queued as "secondary" requests to that first ("primary") request.

Existing implementation crops only primary request.  This is not correct
because a subsequent extending write(2) may increase i_size and then
secondary requests won't be cropped properly.  The result would be stale
data written to the server to a file offset where zeros must be.

Similar problem may happen if secondary requests are attached to an
in-flight request that was already cropped.

The patch solves the issue by cropping all secondary requests in
fuse_writepage_end().  Thanks to Miklos for idea.

Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@parallels.com>
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>

1 files changed, 31 insertions, 5 deletions

diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
index 077b038..1cb303e 100644
--- a/fs/fuse/file.c
+++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
@@ -1436,12 +1436,12 @@ static void fuse_writepage_finish(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_req *req)
 }
 
 /* Called under fc->lock, may release and reacquire it */
-static void fuse_send_writepage(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_req *req)
+static void fuse_send_writepage(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_req *req,
+				loff_t size)
 __releases(fc->lock)
 __acquires(fc->lock)
 {
 	struct fuse_inode *fi = get_fuse_inode(req->inode);
-	loff_t size = i_size_read(req->inode);
 	struct fuse_write_in *inarg = &req->misc.write.in;
 	__u64 data_size = req->num_pages * PAGE_CACHE_SIZE;
 
@@ -1482,12 +1482,13 @@ __acquires(fc->lock)
 {
 	struct fuse_conn *fc = get_fuse_conn(inode);
 	struct fuse_inode *fi = get_fuse_inode(inode);
+	size_t crop = i_size_read(inode);
 	struct fuse_req *req;
 
 	while (fi->writectr >= 0 && !list_empty(&fi->queued_writes)) {
 		req = list_entry(fi->queued_writes.next, struct fuse_req, list);
 		list_del_init(&req->list);
-		fuse_send_writepage(fc, req);
+		fuse_send_writepage(fc, req, crop);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -1499,12 +1500,37 @@ static void fuse_writepage_end(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_req *req)
 	mapping_set_error(inode->i_mapping, req->out.h.error);
 	spin_lock(&fc->lock);
 	while (req->misc.write.next) {
+		struct fuse_conn *fc = get_fuse_conn(inode);
+		struct fuse_write_in *inarg = &req->misc.write.in;
 		struct fuse_req *next = req->misc.write.next;
 		req->misc.write.next = next->misc.write.next;
 		next->misc.write.next = NULL;
 		list_add(&next->writepages_entry, &fi->writepages);
-		list_add_tail(&next->list, &fi->queued_writes);
-		fuse_flush_writepages(inode);
+
+		/*
+		 * Skip fuse_flush_writepages() to make it easy to crop requests
+		 * based on primary request size.
+		 *
+		 * 1st case (trivial): there are no concurrent activities using
+		 * fuse_set/release_nowrite.  Then we're on safe side because
+		 * fuse_flush_writepages() would call fuse_send_writepage()
+		 * anyway.
+		 *
+		 * 2nd case: someone called fuse_set_nowrite and it is waiting
+		 * now for completion of all in-flight requests.  This happens
+		 * rarely and no more than once per page, so this should be
+		 * okay.
+		 *
+		 * 3rd case: someone (e.g. fuse_do_setattr()) is in the middle
+		 * of fuse_set_nowrite..fuse_release_nowrite section.  The fact
+		 * that fuse_set_nowrite returned implies that all in-flight
+		 * requests were completed along with all of their secondary
+		 * requests.  Further primary requests are blocked by negative
+		 * writectr.  Hence there cannot be any in-flight requests and
+		 * no invocations of fuse_writepage_end() while we're in
+		 * fuse_set_nowrite..fuse_release_nowrite section.
+		 */
+		fuse_send_writepage(fc, next, inarg->offset + inarg->size);
 	}
 	fi->writectr--;
 	fuse_writepage_finish(fc, req);