| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 11:15:01 +0530
From: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Eryu Guan <guaneryu@...il.com>
Cc: fstests@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
riteshh@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ext4: Test to ensure resize with sparse_super2 is
handled correctly
On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 06:36:14PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:20:53PM +0530, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> > Kernel currently doesn't support resize of EXT4 mounted
> > with sparse_super2 option enabled. Earlier, it used to leave the resize
> > incomplete and the fs would be left in an inconsistent state, however commit
> > b1489186cc83[1] fixed this to avoid the fs corruption by clearly returning
> > -EOPNOTSUPP.
> >
> > Test to ensure that kernel handles resizing with sparse_super2 correctly. Run
> > resize for multiple iterations because this sometimes leads to kernel crash due
> > to fs corruption, which we want to detect.
> >
> > Related commit in mainline:
> >
> > [1] commit b1489186cc8391e0c1e342f9fbc3eedf6b944c61
> >
> > ext4: add check to prevent attempting to resize an fs with sparse_super2
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >
> > I would like to add a few comments on the approach followed in this
> > test:
> >
> > 1. So although we check the return codes of the resize operation for
> > proper logging, the test is only considered to be passed if fsck
> > passes after the resize. This is because resizing a patched kernel
> > always keeps the fs consistent whereas resizing on unpatched kernel
> > always corrupts the fs.
> >
> > 2. I've noticed that running mkfs + resize multiple times on unpatched
> > kernel sometimes results in KASAN reporting use-after-free. Hence, if
> > we detect the kernel is unpatched (doesn't return EOPNOTSUPP on
> > resize) we continue iterating to capture this. In this case, we don't
> > run fsck in each iteration but run it only after all iterations are
> > complete because _check_scratch_fs exits the test if it fails.
> >
> > 3. In case we detect patched kernel, we stop iterating, and run fsck to
> > confirm success
> >
> > tests/ext4/056 | 108 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > tests/ext4/056.out | 2 +
> > 2 files changed, 110 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100755 tests/ext4/056
> > create mode 100644 tests/ext4/056.out
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/ext4/056 b/tests/ext4/056
> > new file mode 100755
> > index 00000000..0f275dea
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tests/ext4/056
> > @@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
> > +#! /bin/bash
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +# Copyright (c) 2022 IBM. All Rights Reserved.
> > +#
> > +# We don't currently support resize of EXT4 filesystems mounted
> > +# with sparse_super2 option enabled. Earlier, kernel used to leave the resize
> > +# incomplete and the fs would be left into an incomplete state, however commit
> > +# b1489186cc83[1] fixed this to avoid the fs corruption by clearly returning
> > +# -ENOTSUPP.
> > +#
> > +# This test ensures that kernel handles resizing with sparse_super2 correctly
> > +#
> > +# Related commit in mainline:
> > +#
> > +# [1] commit b1489186cc8391e0c1e342f9fbc3eedf6b944c61
> > +# ext4: add check to prevent attempting to resize an fs with sparse_super2
> > +#
> > +
> > +. ./common/preamble
> > +_begin_fstest auto ioctl resize quick
> > +
> > +# real QA test starts here
> > +
> > +INITIAL_FS_SIZE=1G
> > +RESIZED_FS_SIZE=$((2*1024*1024*1024)) # 2G
> > +ONLINE_RESIZE_BLOCK_LIMIT=$((256*1024*1024))
> > +
> > +STOP_ITER=255 # Arbitrary return code
> > +
> > +_supported_fs ext4
> > +_require_scratch_size $(($RESIZED_FS_SIZE/1024))
> > +_require_test_program "ext4_resize"
> > +
> > +log()
> > +{
> > + echo "$seq: $*" >> $seqres.full 2>&1
> > +}
> > +
> > +do_resize()
> > +{
> > + _mkfs_dev -E resize=$ONLINE_RESIZE_BLOCK_LIMIT -O sparse_super2 \
> > + $SCRATCH_DEV $INITIAL_FS_SIZE >> $seqres.full 2>&1 \
> > + || _fail "$MKFS_PROG failed. Exiting"
> > +
> > + _scratch_mount || _fail "Failed to mount scratch partition. Exiting"
> > +
> > + local BS=$(_get_block_size $SCRATCH_MNT)
> > + local REQUIRED_BLOCKS=$(($RESIZED_FS_SIZE/$BS))
> > +
> > + local RESIZE_RET
> > + local EOPNOTSUPP=95
> > +
> > + log "Resizing FS"
> > + $here/src/ext4_resize $SCRATCH_MNT $REQUIRED_BLOCKS >> $seqres.full 2>&1
> > + RESIZE_RET=$?
> > +
> > + # Test appears to be successful. Stop iterating and confirm if FS is
> > + # consistent.
> > + if [ $RESIZE_RET = $EOPNOTSUPP ]
> > + then
> > + log "Resize operation not supported with sparse_super2"
> > + log "Threw expected error $RESIZE_RET (EOPNOTSUPP)"
> > + return $STOP_ITER
> > + fi
> > +
> > + # Test appears to be unsuccessful. Most probably, the fs is corrupt,
> > + # iterate a few more times to further stress test this.
> > + log "Something is wrong. Output of resize = $RESIZE_RET. \
> > + Expected $EOPNOTSUPP (EOPNOTSUPP)"
> > +
> > + # unmount after ioctl sometimes fails with "device busy" so add a small
> > + # delay
> > + sleep 0.2
> > + _scratch_unmount >> $seqres.full 2>&1 \
> > + || _fail "$UMOUNT_PROG failed. Exiting"
> > +}
> > +
> > +run_test()
> > +{
> > + local FSCK_RET
> > + local ITERS=8
> > + local RET=0
> > +
> > + for i in $(seq 1 $ITERS)
> > + do
> > + log "----------- Iteration: $i ------------"
> > + do_resize
> > + RET=$?
> > +
> > + [ "$RET" = "$STOP_ITER" ] && break
> > + done
> > +
> > + log "-------- Iterations Complete ---------"
> > + log "Checking if FS is in consistent state"
> > + _check_scratch_fs
>
> _check_scratch_fs will exit the test on failure and print error message,
> which will break the golden image, so there's no need to check fsck ret.
>
> > + FSCK_RET=$?
> > +
> > + [ "$FSCK_RET" -ne "0" ] && \
> > + echo "fs corrupt. Check $seqres.full for more details"
> > +
> > + return $FSCK_RET
>
> So I removed above hunk on commit.
>
> Thanks for the test! And my apology to the HUGE delay on review..
No worries Eryu, thanks a lot for the review :)
Regards,
Ojaswin
>
> Thanks,
> Eryu
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +echo "Silence is golden"
> > +run_test
> > +status=$?
> > +
> > +exit
> > diff --git a/tests/ext4/056.out b/tests/ext4/056.out
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000..6142fcd2
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tests/ext4/056.out
> > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > +QA output created by 056
> > +Silence is golden
> > --
> > 2.27.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists