Re: [PATCH v2] xfs/842: verify CoW after exchangerange with FILE1_WRITTEN on shared extents

在 2026/8/2 20:12, Zorro Lang 写道:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 10:54:54AM +0800, Lin Jiapeng wrote:
>> When a full-file exchangerange is requested with FILE1_WRITTEN for a
>> fully sparse donor file, every mapping pair is skipped, so no extents
>> actually move.  However, the kernel decides to swap the reflink inode
>> flag based on the request geometry alone, so the target file used to
>> lose its reflink flag to the donor while still owning shared extents.
>> A subsequent write then took the non-reflink write path and modified
>> the shared physical blocks in place, silently corrupting the other
>> file sharing them:
>>
>>   --- tests/xfs/842.out
>>   +++ results/xfs/842.out.bad
>>   @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
>>    QA output created by 842
>>   +vX.reflink = 0
>>    vX.reflink = 1
>>   -vX.reflink = 1
>>   +orig changed: md5 e6065c4aa2ab1603008fc18410f579d4 -> 32c5189478e6bafa1cc76423f06c88f2 (write hit shared blocks in place)
>>    Silence is golden
>>
>> This test clones a file so that both share extents, swaps the clone
>> against a sparse donor with FILE1_WRITTEN, and then checks the defect
>> twice.  First it inspects the inodes directly with xfs_db: the clone
>> must still be flagged reflink after the exchange (the donor carrying
>> the flag too is the conservative outcome of the fix and is harmless).
>> Then it writes to the clone and verifies after a mount cycle that the
>> original file's data is intact, i.e. the write was redirected through
>> CoW.
>>
>> The kernel fix "xfs: fix exchange-range reflink flag clearing issue
>> with INO1_WRITTEN" refuses the reflink flag exchange whenever
> 
> So this patch/case uncovers a known bug which is fixed by:
>    "xfs: fix exchange-range reflink flag clearing issue with INO1_WRITTEN" ?
> 
> If so please add:
>    _fixed_by_fs_commit xfs xxxxxxxxxxxx \
>          "xfs: fix exchange-range reflink flag clearing issue with INO1_WRITTEN"
> 
>> FILE1_WRITTEN is requested, which makes this test pass.
>>
>> Reported-by: Lin Jiapeng(TencentOS Red Team) <[email protected]>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>> Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
>> Suggested-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <[email protected]>
>> Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Lin Jiapeng <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>   tests/xfs/842     | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   tests/xfs/842.out |  4 +++
>>   2 files changed, 69 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100755 tests/xfs/842
>>   create mode 100644 tests/xfs/842.out
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/xfs/842 b/tests/xfs/842
>> new file mode 100755
>> index 0000000..c4c2be9
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tests/xfs/842
>> @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
>> +#! /bin/bash
>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
>> +# Copyright (c) 2026 Tencent.  All Rights Reserved.
>> +#
>> +# FS QA Test No. 842
>> +#
>> +# Make sure that a full-file exchangerange under FILE1_WRITTEN does not strip
>> +# the reflink flag from a file that still owns shared extents.  When the
>> +# donor file is fully sparse, every mapping pair is skipped, so no extents
>> +# actually move; the target file must keep its reflink flag, and a later
>> +# write must go through CoW instead of modifying the shared blocks in place.
>> +
>> +. ./common/preamble
>> +_begin_fstest auto quick fiexchange
>> +
>> +# Import common functions.
>> +. ./common/filter
>> +. ./common/reflink
>> +
>> +_require_xfs_io_command exchangerange
>> +_require_scratch_reflink
>> +_require_scratch
> 
> _require_scratch_reflink contains _require_scratch, so you can save the
> _require_scratch.
> 
>> +
>> +_scratch_mkfs >> $seqres.full
>> +_scratch_mount
>> +
>> +# Create the original file with a known pattern and clone it, so that both
>> +# files share the same extents.
>> +_pwrite_byte 0x41 0 1m $SCRATCH_MNT/orig >> $seqres.full
>> +_reflink $SCRATCH_MNT/orig $SCRATCH_MNT/clone >> $seqres.full
>> +
>> +# Create a fully sparse donor file of the same size.
>> +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -c 'truncate 1m' $SCRATCH_MNT/donor
>> +
>> +md5_before=$(md5sum $SCRATCH_MNT/orig | awk '{print $1}')
>> +
>> +# Swap the clone against the sparse donor, claiming the donor is fully
>> +# written (-w).  Every donor mapping is a hole, so all pairs are skipped
>> +# and the clone keeps its shared extents in place.
>> +$XFS_IO_PROG -c "exchangerange -f -w $SCRATCH_MNT/donor" $SCRATCH_MNT/clone \
>> +	>> $seqres.full
>> +
>> +# Directly confirm the inode flag state after the exchange: the clone
>> +# must still be flagged reflink.  The donor may also carry the flag, which
>> +# is the conservative outcome of refusing the flag exchange under
>> +# FILE1_WRITTEN; the extra flag is harmless and can be dropped later by
>> +# the regular reflink flag cleanup path.
>> +_scratch_unmount
>> +_scratch_xfs_db -c "path /clone" -c print -c "path /donor" -c print | \
>> +	grep reflink | sed -e 's/^v[0-9]*/vX/g'
>> +_scratch_mount
>> +
>> +# Overwrite part of the clone.  With the reflink flag correctly retained,
>> +# this must go through CoW and leave the shared blocks of orig untouched.
>> +_pwrite_byte 0x42 0 64k $SCRATCH_MNT/clone >> $seqres.full
>> +_scratch_cycle_mount
>> +
>> +md5_after=$(md5sum $SCRATCH_MNT/orig | awk '{print $1}')
>> +
>> +test "$md5_before" != "$md5_after" && \
>> +	echo "orig changed: md5 $md5_before -> $md5_after (write hit shared blocks in place)"
>> +
>> +echo Silence is golden
> 
> This case has expected output, so it's not "Silence is golden",
> please remove this line.
> 
>> +status=0
>> +exit
> 
> I remember we've changed xfstests/new script, it should give "_exit 0" at here.
> 
> Thanks,
> Zorro
> 
>> diff --git a/tests/xfs/842.out b/tests/xfs/842.out
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..1e6345a
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tests/xfs/842.out
>> @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
>> +QA output created by 842
>> +vX.reflink = 1
>> +vX.reflink = 1
>> +Silence is golden
>> -- 
>> 2.50.1 (Apple Git-155)
>>

Thanks a lot for your review!

Yes, this test case uncovers the bug fixed by "xfs: fix exchange-range 
reflink flag clearing issue with INO1_WRITTEN". However, that fix is 
still under review on linux-xfs and has not landed in for-next / 
xfs-7.2-fixes yet, so there is no stable commit ID to reference. I will 
add the _fixed_by_fs_commit annotation as soon as the fix is merged.

The other comments will be addressed in v4.

Lin Jiapeng