linux-kernel - Re: Wrong DIF guard tag on ext2 write

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:	Wed, 2 Jun 2010 04:46:49 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Christof Schmitt <christof.schmitt@...ibm.com>,
	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Wrong DIF guard tag on ext2 write

On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 02:09:05PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 04:54:53PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 12:47 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:29:30AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 09:49:51AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > > > > I agree that a block based retry would close all the holes ... it just
> > > > > > doesn't look elegant to me that the fs will already be repeating the I/O
> > > > > > if it changed the page and so will block.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We might not ever repeat the IO.  We might change the page, write it,
> > > > > change it again, truncate the file and toss the page completely.
> > > > 
> > > > Why does it matter that it was never written in that case?
> > > 
> > > It matters is the storage layer is going to wait around for the block to
> > > be written again with a correct crc.
> > 
> > Actually, I wasn't advocating that.  I think block should return a guard
> > mismatch error.  I think somewhere in filesystem writeout is the place
> > to decide whether the error was self induced or systematic.
> 
> In that case the io error goes to the async page writeback bio-endio
> handlers.  We don't have a reference on the inode and no ability to
> reliably restart the IO, but we can set a bit on the address space
> indicating that somewhere, sometime in the past we had an IO error.
> 
> > For self
> > induced errors (as long as we can detect them) I think we can just
> > forget about it ... if the changed page is important, the I/O request
> > gets repeated (modulo the problem of too great a frequency of changes
> > leading to us never successfully writing it) or it gets dropped because
> > the file was truncated or the data deleted for some other reason.
> 
> Sorry, how can we tell the errors that are self induced from the evil
> bit flipping cable induced errors?

Block layer should retry it with bounce pages. That would be a lot nicer
than forcing all upper layers to avoid the problem.

--
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/