linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: check missed return value ext4_sync

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, 17 Mar 2010 14:38:09 +0300
From:	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: check missed return value ext4_sync_file

Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:

>> Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:
>> >> 
>> >> If jbd2_log_start_commit return 0 then it means that transaction
>> >> was already committed. So we don't have to issue barrier for
>> >> ordered mode, because it was already done during commit.
>> >   Umm, we have to - when a file has just been rewritten (i.e. no block
>> > allocation), then i_datasync_tid is not updated and thus we won't commit
>> > any transaction as a part of fdatasync (and that is correct because there
>> > are no metadata that need to be written for that fdatasync). But we still
>> > have to flush disk caches with data submitted by filemap_fdatawrite_and_wait.
>> Yepp. I've missed that. i thought that transaction id updated even in that
>> case.  The most unpleasant part in ext4_sync_file implementation is that
>> barrier is issued on each fsync() call.  So some bad user may perform:
>> while(1) fsync(fd); which result in bad system performance. And since barrier
>> request is empty it is hard to detect the reason of troubles.
>   Actually, you'll be able to see the barrier requests in the blktrace dump
> so it won't be that hard to detect.
>
>> Off course we may solve it by introducing some sort of dirty flag which is
>> set in write_page, and clear in fsync. But it looks as ugly workaround.
>   I agree that sending barrier request on each fsync isn't very nice but
> in common case, I'd assume that an application calls fsync only if it has
> written something to the file previously. So I wouldn't invest much into
> solving this until I see a realistic use case where it matters...
>
>> >> By unknown reason we ignored ret val from jbd2_log_wait_commit()
>> >> so even in case of EIO fsync will succeed.
>> >   I just forgot jbd2_log_wait_commit can return a failure...
>> In respect to previous comments the patch reduced to simple missed
>> error check fix.
>   I guess you can resend the fix to Ted directly to catch his attention.
Ohh.. After this letter i've found new issues with metadata, as result
new patch version was sent.
http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=126841481923132&w=2
>
>> BTW: While investigating similar code in ext3 i've found what fsync is broken
>> in case of external journal.
>   Yes, I've noticed this recently as well. So will you send a fix or should
> I go and backport ext4 fixes of this?
I've already done that
http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=126841482023138&w=2
It already contains fix for metadata handling logic.


>
> 								Honza
--
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