On 04/23/2012 10:37 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:

On 4/22/12 7:51 AM, Bernd Schubert wrote:

quoted

On 04/20/2012 10:04 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:

quoted

On 1/9/12 7:21 AM, Bernd Schubert wrote:

quoted

From: Fan Yong <yong.fan-KloliPT79xf2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org>

Traditionally ext2/3/4 has returned a 32-bit hash value from llseek()
to appease NFSv2, which can only handle a 32-bit cookie for seekdir()
and telldir().  However, this causes problems if there are 32-bit hash
collisions, since the NFSv2 server can get stuck resending the same
entries from the directory repeatedly.

Allow ext4 to return a full 64-bit hash (both major and minor) for
telldir to decrease the chance of hash collisions.  This still needs
integration on the NFS side.

Patch-updated-by: Bernd Schubert [off-list ref]
(blame me if something is not correct)

Bernd, I've merged this to ext3.  Bruce thought maybe you were working
on the same.  Should I send mine?

That is perfectly fine with me.

quoted

Also...

quoted

+/*
+ * ext4_dir_llseek() based on generic_file_llseek() to handle both
+ * non-htree and htree directories, where the "offset" is in terms
+ * of the filename hash value instead of the byte offset.
+ *
+ * NOTE: offsets obtained *before* ext4_set_inode_flag(dir, EXT4_INODE_INDEX)
+ *       will be invalid once the directory was converted into a dx directory
+ */
+loff_t ext4_dir_llseek(struct file *file, loff_t offset, int origin)

ext4_llseek() worries about max offset for direct/indirect vs. extent-mapped
files.  Do we need to worry about the same thing in this function?

Hrmm, I just checked it and I think either is wrong. We only have to
care about non-dx directories, so ext4_readdir() applies, which limits
filp->f_pos < inode->i_size.
Going to send a patch tomorrow. Thanks for spotting this!

The other thing I'm wondering is whether, in light of

ef3d0fd27e90f67e35da516dafc1482c82939a60 vfs: do (nearly) lockless generic_file_llseek

taking the i_mutex in ext4_dir_llseek could be a perf regression vs what was there before?  Is there anything about the new function which requires stronger locking?

I may be missing something obvious about the nfs interaction, not sure.

Oh, good point. I was just about to send a small patch, but reading
through the lockless commit will take some time - its already too late
for me for today. Will work on that tomorrow. Thanks again for your review!

Cheers,
Bernd

diff --git a/fs/ext4/dir.c b/fs/ext4/dir.c
index b867862..3a4988e2 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/dir.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/dir.c

@@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ loff_t ext4_dir_llseek(struct file *file, loff_t

offset, int origin)
 		goto out_err;

 	if (!dx_dir) {
-		if (offset > inode->i_sb->s_maxbytes)
+		if (offset > i_size_read(inode))
 			goto out_err;
 	} else if (offset > ext4_get_htree_eof(file))
 		goto out_err;


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html