From: Viacheslav Dubeyko <slava@dubeyko.com>
To: xiubo.li@clyso.com, Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
Alex Markuze <amarkuze@redhat.com>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ceph: revalidate ki_pos for O_APPEND writes after cap acquisition
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 10:35:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b5e05cbd0b7aa6ecd8a66dedb71a58e37dafdc8e.camel@dubeyko.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260717-ceph-append-fix-v1-1-c51907ac8e36@clyso.com>
On Fri, 2026-07-17 at 17:33 +0800, Xiubo Li via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: Xiubo Li <xiubo.li@clyso.com>
>
> 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.
>
> Link: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/7333
> Signed-off-by: Xiubo Li <xiubo.li@clyso.com>
> ---
> For O_APPEND writes, ki_pos is set to EOF via generic_write_checks()
> after fetching i_size from the MDS via ceph_do_getattr(). However,
> ceph_get_caps() may wait for Fwx exclusive caps (because endoff >
> i_max_size). During that wait, the previous Fwx holder may have
> already extended the file. When the MDS grants us Fwx, the local
> i_size is updated via the cap grant message, but ki_pos is still
> the old EOF, resulting in the append write overwriting data.
>
> Fix by revalidating ki_pos against i_size_read(inode) after
> ceph_get_caps() returns. We now hold Fwx — no other client can
> change the file, so i_size is stable and correct.
>
> Fixes: 8e4473bb50a1 ("ceph: do not execute direct write in parallel
> if O_APPEND is specified")
> Link: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/7333
The patch has two --- separators. The Fixes and Link will be finally
dropped.
> ---
> fs/ceph/file.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ceph/file.c b/fs/ceph/file.c
> index 9d89d7fc1095..b35c9aee48dd 100644
> --- a/fs/ceph/file.c
> +++ b/fs/ceph/file.c
> @@ -2491,6 +2491,32 @@ static ssize_t ceph_write_iter(struct kiocb
> *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
> if (err < 0)
> goto out;
ceph_get_caps() validated caps against the old endoff = pos + count.
After adjusting pos forward, the real write range is [cur_eof, cur_eof
+ count), which isn't re-validated against i_max_size. Could it be a
potential issue?
Thanks,
Slava.
>
> + /*
> + * 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);
> + }
> + }
> +
> err = file_update_time(file);
> if (err)
> goto out_caps;
>
> ---
> base-commit: df47791ab9f12cd9144aca477ddae195f68072a5
> change-id: 20260717-ceph-append-fix-9820e3b1a78c
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Xiubo Li <xiubo.li@clyso.com>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-17 17:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-17 9:33 Xiubo Li via B4 Relay
2026-07-17 17:35 ` Viacheslav Dubeyko [this message]
2026-07-18 2:17 ` Xiubo Li
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b5e05cbd0b7aa6ecd8a66dedb71a58e37dafdc8e.camel@dubeyko.com \
--to=slava@dubeyko.com \
--cc=amarkuze@redhat.com \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=idryomov@gmail.com \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xiubo.li@clyso.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®