> > > > Using FMODE_WRITE is more proper for this case, since we're going to
> > > > modify the data. But I think mnt_want_write_file() is still required
> > > > to prevent the filesystem from freezing or something else.
> > >
> > > Right, the freezing check is actually still necessary. But getting write
> > > access
> > > to the mount is not necessary. I think you should use file_start_write()
> > > and
> > > file_end_write(), like vfs_write() does.
>
> I've checked this again.
>
> But I think mnt_want_write_file() looks better than the combination of
> checking FMODE_WRITE and file_start_write(), because
> mnt_want_write_file() handles all the things we need.
> It checks FMODE_WRITER, which is set in do_dentry_open() when
> FMODE_WRITE is already set, and does the stuff that file_start_write()
> is doing. This is why the other filesystem system calls use it.
>
> What do you think?
Hmm, we still need FMODE_WRITE check.
But mnt_want_write_file() looks better, because it'll call
mnt_clone_write() internally, if the file is open for write already.
in ext4/ioctl.c
case EXT4_IOC_SWAP_BOOT:
{
int err;
if (!(filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE))
return -EBADF;
err = mnt_want_write_file(filp);
if (err)
return err;2020년 6월 11일 (목) 오전 8:31, Daeho
Jeong <daeh...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
>
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (f2fs_readonly(sbi->sb))
> > > > > > + return -EROFS;
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't this redundant with mnt_want_write_file()?
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, shouldn't write access to the file be required, i.e.
> > > > > (filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE)? Then the f2fs_readonly() and
> > > > > mnt_want_write_file() checks would be unnecessary.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Using FMODE_WRITE is more proper for this case, since we're going to
> > > > modify the data. But I think mnt_want_write_file() is still required
> > > > to prevent the filesystem from freezing or something else.
> > >
> > > Right, the freezing check is actually still necessary. But getting write
> > > access
> > > to the mount is not necessary. I think you should use file_start_write()
> > > and
> > > file_end_write(), like vfs_write() does.
>
> I've checked this again.
>
> But I think mnt_want_write_file() looks better than the combination of
> checking FMODE_WRITE and file_start_write(), because
> mnt_want_write_file() handles all the things we need.
> It checks FMODE_WRITER, which is set in do_dentry_open() when
> FMODE_WRITE is already set, and does the stuff that file_start_write()
> is doing. This is why the other filesystem system calls use it.
>
> What do you think?
>
> 2020년 6월 10일 (수) 오후 12:55, Daeho Jeong <daeh...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
> >
> > > >
> > > > To prevent the file data from garbage collecting, the user needs to
> > > > use pinfile ioctl and fallocate system call after creating the file.
> > > > The sequence is like below.
> > > > 1. create an empty file
> > > > 2. pinfile
> > > > 3. fallocate()
> > >
> > > Is that persistent? So the file will never be moved afterwards?
> > >
> > > Is there a place where this is (or should be) documented?
> >
> > Yes, this is persistent. F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE ioctl is to prevent
> > file data from moving and being garbage collected, and further update
> > to the file will be handled in in-place update manner.
> > I don't see any document on this, but you can find the below in
> > Documentation/filesystems/f2fs.rst
> >
> > However, once F2FS receives ioctl(fd, F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE) in prior to
> > fallocate(fd, DEFAULT_MODE), it allocates on-disk blocks addresses having
> > zero or random data, which is useful to the below scenario where:
> >
> > 1. create(fd)
> > 2. ioctl(fd, F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE)
> > 3. fallocate(fd, 0, 0, size)
> > 4. address = fibmap(fd, offset)
> > 5. open(blkdev)
> > 6. write(blkdev, address)
> >
> > > Right, the freezing check is actually still necessary. But getting write
> > > access
> > > to the mount is not necessary. I think you should use file_start_write()
> > > and
> > > file_end_write(), like vfs_write() does.
> >
> > Yes, agreed.
> >
> > 2020년 6월 10일 (수) 오후 12:15, Eric Biggers <ebigg...@kernel.org>님이 작성:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:05:46AM +0900, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> > > > > > Added a new ioctl to send discard commands or/and zero out
> > > > > > to whole data area of a regular file for security reason.
> > > > >
> > > > > With this ioctl available, what is the exact procedure to write and
> > > > > then later
> > > > > securely erase a file on f2fs? In particular, how can the user
> > > > > prevent f2fs
> > > > > from making multiple copies of file data blocks as part of garbage
> > > > > collection?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > To prevent the file data from garbage collecting, the user needs to
> > > > use pinfile ioctl and fallocate system call after creating the file.
> > > > The sequence is like below.
> > > > 1. create an empty file
> > > > 2. pinfile
> > > > 3. fallocate()
> > >
> > > Is that persistent? So the file will never be moved afterwards?
> > >
> > > Is there a place where this is (or should be) documented?
> > >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (f2fs_readonly(sbi->sb))
> > > > > > + return -EROFS;
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't this redundant with mnt_want_write_file()?
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, shouldn't write access to the file be required, i.e.
> > > > > (filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE)? Then the f2fs_readonly() and
> > > > > mnt_want_write_file() checks would be unnecessary.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Using FMODE_WRITE is more proper for this case, since we're going to
> > > > modify the data. But I think mnt_want_write_file() is still required
> > > > to prevent the filesystem from freezing or something else.
> > >
> > > Right, the freezing check is actually still necessary. But getting write
> > > access
> > > to the mount is not necessary. I think you should use file_start_write()
> > > and
> > > file_end_write(), like vfs_write() does.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (get_user(flags, (u32 __user *)arg))
> > > > > > + return -EFAULT;
> > > > > > + if (!(flags & F2FS_TRIM_FILE_MASK))
> > > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > >
> > > > > Need to reject unknown flags:
> > > > >
> > > > > if (flags & ~F2FS_TRIM_FILE_MASK)
> > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > > I needed a different thing here. This was to check neither discard nor
> > > > zeroing out are not here. But we still need to check unknown flags,
> > > > too.
> > > > The below might be better.
> > > > if (!flags || flags & ~F2FS_TRIM_FILE_MASK)
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > Sure, but please put parentheses around the second clause:
> > >
> > > if (flags == 0 || (flags & ~F2FS_TRIM_FILE_MASK))
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > - Eric
