Re: [PATCH v2] ceph: revalidate ki_pos for O_APPEND writes after cap acquisition
Xiubo Li <[email protected]> Tue, 21 Jul 2026 12:54:04 +0800
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.ceph-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAOJNxRJB4_CxWeJ+5bKjTeQVQOgS3vYrDDZUv35d+cq+jCrLyg@mail.gmail.com> |
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 at 01:38, Viacheslav Dubeyko <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 2026-07-18 at 10:29 +0800, Xiubo Li via B4 Relay wrote: > > From: Xiubo Li <[email protected]> > > > > For O_APPEND writes, ki_pos is set to the current EOF via > > generic_write_checks() after fetching i_size from the MDS. However, > > ceph_get_caps() may need to wait for Fwx exclusive caps if the write > > extends the file (endoff > i_max_size). While waiting for Fwx, the > > previous Fwx holder (another client) may have already extended the > > file. When the MDS grants us Fwx, the cap grant message updates the > > local i_size, but ki_pos remains at the old EOF, causing the append > > write to land at a stale offset and overwrite data from the other > > client. > > > > Fix by re-reading i_size_read(inode) after ceph_get_caps() returns. > > At this point we hold Fwx exclusive caps, no other client can modify > > the file, and i_size reflects the true EOF from the MDS cap grant. > > No extra MDS round-trip is needed. Only adjust ki_pos when the EOF > > has actually changed. > > > > After adjusting ki_pos forward, the write range [pos, pos+count) may > > now exceed the i_max_size that was validated by ceph_get_caps() for > > the old range. Re-check against i_max_size and truncate the write > > if necessary to stay within the MDS-granted limit. > > > > Fixes: 8e4473bb50a1 ("ceph: do not execute direct write in parallel > > if O_APPEND is specified") > > Link: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/7333 > > Signed-off-by: Xiubo Li <[email protected]> > > --- > > Changes in v2: > > - Re-check write range against i_max_size after adjusting ki_pos > > forward, and truncate if it exceeds the MDS-granted limit.(Viacheslav > > Dubeyko) > > - Link to v1: > > https://patch.msgid.link/[email protected] > > --- > > fs/ceph/file.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/fs/ceph/file.c b/fs/ceph/file.c > > index 9d89d7fc1095..a2b4d261e23c 100644 > > --- a/fs/ceph/file.c > > +++ b/fs/ceph/file.c > > @@ -2491,6 +2491,48 @@ static ssize_t ceph_write_iter(struct kiocb > > *iocb, struct iov_iter *from) > > if (err < 0) > > goto out; > > > > + /* > > + * For O_APPEND writes we may have waited for Fwx exclusive > > caps > > + * while the previous Fwx holder (another client) extended > > the > > + * file. i_size has been updated via the cap grant message > > from > > + * the MDS, but ki_pos is still the old EOF. Re-read i_size > > here > > + * (no extra MDS round-trip needed) and adjust ki_pos to the > > true > > + * EOF. Since we hold Fwx, no other client can change the > > file. > > + */ > > + if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_APPEND) { > > + loff_t cur_eof = i_size_read(inode); > > + > > + if (cur_eof != pos) { > > + doutc(cl, > > + "%p %llx.%llx O_APPEND: pos adjusted > > %lld -> %lld\n", > > + inode, ceph_vinop(inode), pos, > > cur_eof); > > + iocb->ki_pos = cur_eof; > > + pos = cur_eof; > > + if (pos >= limit) { > > + err = -EFBIG; > > + goto out_caps; > > + } > > + iov_iter_truncate(from, limit - pos); > > + count = iov_iter_count(from); > > + > > + /* > > + * ceph_get_caps() validated the old endoff > > + * against i_max_size; adjusting ki_pos > > forward > > + * may have shifted the write range beyond > > the > > + * granted max_size. Re-check and truncate > > if > > + * necessary. > > + */ > > + if (pos + count > (loff_t)ci->i_max_size) { > > If I am not wrong, every access of i_max_size is done under ci- > >i_ceph_lock. Should we use this lock here? > Hi Slava, Good question. Actually this is a benign race: after ceph_get_caps() returns with Fwx, the MDS won't decrease our i_max_size without first revoking Fwx (which can't happen while we hold a cap reference). So i_max_size can only increase or stay the same. The worst case: we read a stale smaller value and unnecessarily truncate the write. No data corruption. To maintain consistency with other locations, I will improve this anyway. Thanks - Xiubo > Thanks, > Slava. > > > + if (pos >= (loff_t)ci->i_max_size) { > > + err = -EFBIG; > > + goto out_caps; > > + } > > + iov_iter_truncate(from, ci- > > >i_max_size - pos); > > + count = iov_iter_count(from); > > + } > > + } > > + } > > + > > err = file_update_time(file); > > if (err) > > goto out_caps; > > > > --- > > base-commit: df47791ab9f12cd9144aca477ddae195f68072a5 > > change-id: 20260717-ceph-append-fix-9820e3b1a78c > > > > Best regards, > > -- > > Xiubo Li <[email protected]> > >