linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.5 093/101] Btrfs: do not collect ordered extents when logging that inode exists

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:	Mon, 16 May 2016 18:21:38 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>,
	Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.5 093/101] Btrfs: do not collect ordered extents when logging that inode exists

4.5-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>

commit 5e33a2bd7ca7fa687fb0965869196eea6815d1f3 upstream.

When logging that an inode exists, for example as part of a directory
fsync operation, we were collecting any ordered extents for the inode but
we ended up doing nothing with them except tagging them as processed, by
setting the flag BTRFS_ORDERED_LOGGED on them, which prevented a
subsequent fsync of that inode (using the LOG_INODE_ALL mode) from
collecting and processing them. This created a time window where a second
fsync against the inode, using the fast path, ended up not logging the
checksums for the new extents but it logged the extents since they were
part of the list of modified extents. This happened because the ordered
extents were not collected and checksums were not yet added to the csum
tree - the ordered extents have not gone through btrfs_finish_ordered_io()
yet (which is where we add them to the csum tree by calling
inode.c:add_pending_csums()).

So fix this by not collecting an inode's ordered extents if we are logging
it with the LOG_INODE_EXISTS mode.

Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 fs/btrfs/tree-log.c |   17 ++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
@@ -4621,7 +4621,22 @@ static int btrfs_log_inode(struct btrfs_

 	mutex_lock(&BTRFS_I(inode)->log_mutex);

-	btrfs_get_logged_extents(inode, &logged_list, start, end);
+	/*
+	 * Collect ordered extents only if we are logging data. This is to
+	 * ensure a subsequent request to log this inode in LOG_INODE_ALL mode
+	 * will process the ordered extents if they still exists at the time,
+	 * because when we collect them we test and set for the flag
+	 * BTRFS_ORDERED_LOGGED to prevent multiple log requests to process the
+	 * same ordered extents. The consequence for the LOG_INODE_ALL log mode
+	 * not processing the ordered extents is that we end up logging the
+	 * corresponding file extent items, based on the extent maps in the
+	 * inode's extent_map_tree's modified_list, without logging the
+	 * respective checksums (since the may still be only attached to the
+	 * ordered extents and have not been inserted in the csum tree by
+	 * btrfs_finish_ordered_io() yet).
+	 */
+	if (inode_only == LOG_INODE_ALL)
+		btrfs_get_logged_extents(inode, &logged_list, start, end);

 	/*
 	 * a brute force approach to making sure we get the most uptodate