linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 3/4] fs: Avoid data corruption with blocksize

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]

Message-ID: <20090318185015.GA1129@duck.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:50:15 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] fs: Avoid data corruption with blocksize < pagesize

On Thu 19-03-09 00:12:22, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 06:33:54PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Assume the following situation:
> > Filesystem with blocksize < pagesize - suppose blocksize = 1024,
> > pagesize = 4096. File 'f' has first four blocks already allocated.
> > (line with "state:" contains the state of buffers in the page - m = mapped,
> > u = uptodate, d = dirty)
> > 
> >   process 1:                       process 2:
> > 
> > write to 'f' bytes 0 - 1024
> >   state: |mud,-,-,-|, page dirty
> >                                    write to 'f' bytes 1024 - 4096:
> >                                      __block_prepare_write() maps blocks
> >                                        state: |mud,m,m,m|, page dirty
> >                                      we fail to copy data -> copied = 0
> >                                      block_write_end() does nothing
> >                                      page gets unlocked
> 
> 
> If copied = 0 then in  block_write_end we do
> 
> page_zero_new_buffers(page, start+copied, start+len
> 
> which would mean we should not see garbage.
  But this will zero only *new* buffers - so if they are already allocated,
get_block() won't set new flag and they won't be zeroed...
  But I'm not saying I understand why this seems to help against a corruption
under UML because we don't seem to be writing !uptodate buffers there.

									Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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