| 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: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:14:54 -0800
From: Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@...cle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
tao.ma@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/30] ocfs2: Add group extend for online resize
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 02:05:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:35:38 -0800 Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@...cle.com> wrote:
> > From: Tao Ma <tao.ma@...cle.com>
> >
> > This patch adds the ability for a userspace program to request an extend of
> > last cluster group on an Ocfs2 file system. The request is made via ioctl,
> > OCFS2_IOC_GROUP_EXTEND. This is derived from EXT3_IOC_GROUP_EXTEND, but is
> > obviously Ocfs2 specific.
> >
> > tunefs.ocfs2 would call this for an online-resize operation if the last
> > cluster group isn't full.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > +/* Check whether the blkno is the super block or one of the backups. */
> > +static inline void ocfs2_check_super_or_backup(struct super_block *sb,
> > + sector_t blkno)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > + u64 backup_blkno;
> > +
> > + if (blkno == OCFS2_SUPER_BLOCK_BLKNO)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < OCFS2_MAX_BACKUP_SUPERBLOCKS; i++) {
> > + backup_blkno = ocfs2_backup_super_blkno(sb, i);
> > + if (backup_blkno == blkno)
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + BUG();
>
> ow, harsh.
>
> > +}
>
> ocfs2_check_super_or_backup() is too large to inline. As is
> ocfs2_backup_super_blkno() and probably lots of other stuff.
Ok, I added a patch to un-inline ocfs2_check_super_or_backup().
Give me some time to fix up ocfs2_backup_super_blkno() - I'll need to update
the ocfs2-tools tree accordingly.
> Should ocfs2_backup_super_blkno() return sector_t?
Possibly? I think we're safe as-is because a 32 bit machine should not be
able to mount a file system where overflow of this could happen. Internally,
ocfs2 uses u64 to describe file system blocks, which is why
ocfs2_backup_super_blkno() returns that.
> > + * so we don't need to lock ip_io_mutex and inode doesn't need to bea passed
> > + * into this function.
> > + */
> > +int ocfs2_write_super_or_backup(struct ocfs2_super *osb,
> > + struct buffer_head *bh)
> > +{
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + mlog_entry_void();
> > +
> > + BUG_ON(buffer_jbd(bh));
> > + ocfs2_check_super_or_backup(osb->sb, bh->b_blocknr);
> > +
> > + if (ocfs2_is_hard_readonly(osb) || ocfs2_is_soft_readonly(osb)) {
> > + ret = -EROFS;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + lock_buffer(bh);
> > + set_buffer_uptodate(bh);
> > +
> > + /* remove from dirty list before I/O. */
> > + clear_buffer_dirty(bh);
> > +
> > + get_bh(bh); /* for end_buffer_write_sync() */
> > + bh->b_end_io = end_buffer_write_sync;
> > + submit_bh(WRITE, bh);
> > +
> > + wait_on_buffer(bh);
> > +
> > + if (!buffer_uptodate(bh)) {
> > + ret = -EIO;
> > + brelse(bh);
>
> Only use brelse() when the bh might be NULL. put_bh() is cleaner and quicker.
Ok, fixed. There was other places in fs/ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c which got the
same cleanup.
I also took care of the new:
if (bh)
brelse(bh);
patterns in resize.c. Unfortunately, Ocfs2 is littered with this code pattern.
> > + }
> > +
> > +out:
> > + mlog_exit(ret);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
>
> Did we just reimplement sync_dirty_buffer()?
For a bit of background: What Tao did was copy a small core from the other
I/O functions into a new one for backup super block writes. This was done
for cleanliness. The actual method used for buffer_head I/O in Ocfs2 has
been unchanged for years.
At first glance, there *does* seem to be some similarity to
sync_dirty_buffer(), but there are key differences in that dirty/uptodate
state is forced in the ocfs2/buffer_head_io.c case. As such, I'm not sure
that sync_dirty_buffer() is a drop-in replacement.
> > + first_new_cluster,
> > + cl_cpg, 1);
> > + le16_add_cpu(&group->bg_free_bits_count, -1 * backups);
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = ocfs2_journal_dirty(handle, group_bh);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + mlog_errno(ret);
> > + goto out_rollback;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* update the inode accordingly. */
> > + ret = ocfs2_journal_access(handle, bm_inode, bm_bh,
> > + OCFS2_JOURNAL_ACCESS_WRITE);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + mlog_errno(ret);
> > + goto out_rollback;
> > + }
> > +
> > + chain = le16_to_cpu(group->bg_chain);
> > + cr = (&cl->cl_recs[chain]);
> > + le32_add_cpu(&cr->c_total, num_bits);
> > + le32_add_cpu(&cr->c_free, num_bits);
> > + le32_add_cpu(&fe->id1.bitmap1.i_total, num_bits);
> > + le32_add_cpu(&fe->i_clusters, new_clusters);
> > +
> > + if (backups) {
> > + le32_add_cpu(&cr->c_free, -1 * backups);
> > + le32_add_cpu(&fe->id1.bitmap1.i_used, backups);
> > + }
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&OCFS2_I(bm_inode)->ip_lock);
> > + OCFS2_I(bm_inode)->ip_clusters = le32_to_cpu(fe->i_clusters);
> > + le64_add_cpu(&fe->i_size, new_clusters << osb->s_clustersize_bits);
> > + spin_unlock(&OCFS2_I(bm_inode)->ip_lock);
> > + i_size_write(bm_inode, le64_to_cpu(fe->i_size));
>
> Is i_mutex held here? If not, i_size_write() can cause i_size_read()
> deadlocks.
Yeah - this is called from ocfs2_group_extend() which takes i_mutex after
looking up the bitmap inode.
> > +static int update_backups(struct inode * inode, u32 clusters, char *data)
> > +{
> > + int i, ret = 0;
> > + u32 cluster;
> > + u64 blkno;
> > + struct buffer_head *backup = NULL;
> > + struct ocfs2_dinode *backup_di = NULL;
> > + struct ocfs2_super *osb = OCFS2_SB(inode->i_sb);
> > +
> > + /* calculate the real backups we need to update. */
> > + for (i = 0; i < OCFS2_MAX_BACKUP_SUPERBLOCKS; i++) {
> > + blkno = ocfs2_backup_super_blkno(inode->i_sb, i);
> > + cluster = ocfs2_blocks_to_clusters(inode->i_sb, blkno);
> > + if (cluster > clusters)
>
> stray whitespace here. checkpatch doesn't (probably can't) detect this.
> But you apparently don't run checkpatch anwyay..
Not enough, no. And you're right - I should. I'll be much more strict about
running it in the future, thanks for pointing this out.
--Mark
--
Mark Fasheh
Principal Software Developer, Oracle
mark.fasheh@...cle.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists