linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] fix ext4_free_inode vs. ext4_claim

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 5 Mar 2009 00:36:59 +0530
From:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix ext4_free_inode vs. ext4_claim_inode race

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 10:38:41PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> I was seeing fsck errors on inode bitmaps after a 4 thread
> dbench run on a 4 cpu machine:
> 
> Inode bitmap differences: -50736 -(50752--50753) etc...
> 
> I believe that this is because ext4_free_inode() uses atomic
> bitops, and although ext4_new_inode() *used* to also use atomic 
> bitops for synchronization, commit 
> 393418676a7602e1d7d3f6e560159c65c8cbd50e changed this to use
> the sb_bgl_lock, so that we could also synchronize against
> read_inode_bitmap and initialization of uninit inode tables.
> 
> However, that change left ext4_free_inode using atomic bitops,
> which I think leaves no synchronization between setting & 
> unsetting bits in the inode table.
> 
> The below patch fixes it for me, although I wonder if we're 
> getting at all heavy-handed with this spinlock...
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>

Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>


> ---
> 
> Index: linux-2.6/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
> +++ linux-2.6/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ void ext4_free_inode(handle_t *handle, s
>  	struct ext4_group_desc *gdp;
>  	struct ext4_super_block *es;
>  	struct ext4_sb_info *sbi;
> -	int fatal = 0, err, count;
> +	int fatal = 0, err, count, cleared;
>  	ext4_group_t flex_group;
> 
>  	if (atomic_read(&inode->i_count) > 1) {
> @@ -248,8 +248,10 @@ void ext4_free_inode(handle_t *handle, s
>  		goto error_return;
> 
>  	/* Ok, now we can actually update the inode bitmaps.. */
> -	if (!ext4_clear_bit_atomic(sb_bgl_lock(sbi, block_group),
> -					bit, bitmap_bh->b_data))
> +	spin_lock(sb_bgl_lock(sbi, block_group));
> +	cleared = ext4_clear_bit(bit, bitmap_bh->b_data);
> +	spin_unlock(sb_bgl_lock(sbi, block_group));
> +	if (!cleared)
>  		ext4_error(sb, "ext4_free_inode",
>  			   "bit already cleared for inode %lu", ino);
>  	else {
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html