From nobody Tue Nov 14 20:13:48 2023 X-Original-To: current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4SVHZ03PY2z50kg1 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 20:14:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kib@freebsd.org) Received: from kib.kiev.ua (kib.kiev.ua [IPv6:2001:470:d5e7:1::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4SVHZ006ggz4WgK; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 20:13:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kib@freebsd.org) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from tom.home (kib@localhost [127.0.0.1] (may be forged)) by kib.kiev.ua (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTP id 3AEKDmeZ015220; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 22:13:51 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kib@freebsd.org) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 kib.kiev.ua 3AEKDmeZ015220 Received: (from kostik@localhost) by tom.home (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 3AEKDmDm015219; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 22:13:48 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kib@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: tom.home: kostik set sender to kib@freebsd.org using -f Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 22:13:48 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov To: Mateusz Guzik Cc: Alexander Motin , Ronald Klop , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: crash zfs_clone_range() Message-ID: References: <349700057.3452.1699611152405@localhost> <1900239445.5968.1699966796547@localhost> List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on tom.home X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:6939, ipnet:2001:470::/32, country:US] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4SVHZ006ggz4WgK On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 07:51:39PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > On 11/14/23, Alexander Motin wrote: > > On 14.11.2023 12:44, Alexander Motin wrote: > >> On 14.11.2023 12:39, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > >>> One of the vnodes is probably not zfs, I suspect this will do it > >>> (untested): > >>> > >>> diff --git a/sys/contrib/openzfs/module/os/freebsd/zfs/zfs_vnops_os.c > >>> b/sys/contrib/openzfs/module/os/freebsd/zfs/zfs_vnops_os.c > >>> index 107cd69c756c..e799a7091b8e 100644 > >>> --- a/sys/contrib/openzfs/module/os/freebsd/zfs/zfs_vnops_os.c > >>> +++ b/sys/contrib/openzfs/module/os/freebsd/zfs/zfs_vnops_os.c > >>> @@ -6270,6 +6270,11 @@ zfs_freebsd_copy_file_range(struct > >>> vop_copy_file_range_args *ap) > >>> goto bad_write_fallback; > >>> } > >>> } > >>> + > >>> + if (invp->v_mount->mnt_vfc != outvp->v_mount->mnt_vfc) { > >>> + goto bad_write_fallback; > >>> + } > >>> + > >>> if (invp == outvp) { > >>> if (vn_lock(outvp, LK_EXCLUSIVE) != 0) { > >>> goto bad_write_fallback; > >>> > >> > >> vn_copy_file_range() verifies for that: > >> > >> /* > >> * If the two vnodes are for the same file system type, call > >> * VOP_COPY_FILE_RANGE(), otherwise call > >> vn_generic_copy_file_range() > >> * which can handle copies across multiple file system types. > >> */ > >> *lenp = len; > >> if (inmp == outmp || strcmp(inmp->mnt_vfc->vfc_name, > >> outmp->mnt_vfc->vfc_name) == 0) > >> error = VOP_COPY_FILE_RANGE(invp, inoffp, outvp, > >> outoffp, > >> lenp, flags, incred, outcred, fsize_td); > >> else > >> error = vn_generic_copy_file_range(invp, inoffp, outvp, > >> outoffp, lenp, flags, incred, outcred, fsize_td); > > > > Thinking again, what happen if there are two nullfs mounts on top of two > > different file systems, one of which is indeed not ZFS? Do we need to > > add those checks to all ZFS, NFS and FUSE, implementing > > VOP_COPY_FILE_RANGE, or it is responsibility of nullfs or VFS? > > > > I already advocated for not trying to guess for filesystems what they > can or cannot handle internally. > > That is to say vn_copy_file_range should call VOP_COPY_FILE_RANGE, > that can try to figure out what to do and if it got nothing punt to a > fallback. This already happens for some of the cases. > It is nullfs that is to blame there. See https://reviews.freebsd.org/D42603