Re: [PATCH v3] vfs: fix copy_file_range regression in cross-fs copies
From: Nicolas Boichat <hidden>
Date: 2021-02-18 00:59:54
Also in:
ceph-devel, linux-fsdevel, linux-nfs, lkml
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 1:25 AM Luis Henriques [off-list ref] 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").Note that you also fix intra-filesystem copy_file_range on these generated filesystems. This is IMHO great, but needs to be mentioned in the commit message.
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")So technically this fixes something much older, presumably ever since copy_file_range was introduced.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20210212044405.4120619-1-drinkcat@chromium.org/ (local) Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/CANMq1KDZuxir2LM5jOTm0xx+BnvW=ZmpsG47CyHFJwnw7zSX6Q@mail.gmail.com/ (local) Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20210126135012.1.If45b7cdc3ff707bc1efa17f5366057d60603c45f@changeid/ (local) Reported-by: Nicolas Boichat <redacted>
Tested-by: Nicolas Boichat <redacted> but I guess you should not add to the next revision, I'll keep testing further revisions ,-)
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <redacted> --- 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,
fops_copy_file_range_checks ?
+ 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.
+ */
+ if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range)
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;After this is merged, should this be added as an error code to the man page?
+ else if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range != + file_in->f_op->copy_file_range)
Just note, this could be a cross-fs copy (just not a cross-fs_type copy).
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ return -EXDEV; + + 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; + } + 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; } ret = do_copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out, len,@@ -1543,6 +1578,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(copy_file_range, int, fd_in, loff_t __user *, off_in, struct fd f_out; ssize_t ret = -EBADF; + if (flags != 0) + return -EINVAL; + f_in = fdget(fd_in); if (!f_in.file) goto out2;diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h index fd47deea7c17..6f604926d955 100644 --- a/include/linux/fs.h +++ b/include/linux/fs.h@@ -1815,6 +1815,13 @@ struct dir_context { */ #define REMAP_FILE_ADVISORY (REMAP_FILE_CAN_SHORTEN) +/* + * This flag control the behavior of copy_file_range from internal (kernel) + * users. It can be used to override the policy of forbidding copies when + * source and destination filesystems are different. + */ +#define COPY_FILE_SPLICE (1 << 0)
nit: BIT(0) ?
+
struct iov_iter;
struct file_operations {