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  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, 4 Apr 2011 20:31:41 +0800
From:	Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 RFC] ext4: Fix a bug in ext4_journal_start_sb().

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
>  Hello,
>
>  thanks for the patch. I have some suggestions for improvement below...
>
> On Fri 01-04-11 16:44:53, Yongqiang Yang wrote:
>> ext4_journal_start_sb() should not prevent active handle from being
>> started due to s_frozen.  Otherwise, deadlock is easy to happen, below
>> is a situation.
>>
>> ======================================================================
>>      freeze         |       truncate             |      kjournald
>> ======================================================================
>>                     |  ext4_ext_truncate()       |
>>     freeze_super()  |   starts a handle          |
>>     sets s_frozen   |                            |
>>                     |  ext4_ext_truncate()       |
>>                     |  holds i_data_sem          |
>>   ext4_freeze()     |                            |   commit_transaction()
>>   waits for updates |                            |   waits for i_data_sem
>>                     |  ext4_free_blocks()        |
>>                     |  calls dquot_free_block()  |
>>                     |                            |
>>                     |  dquot_free_blocks()       |
>>                     |  calls ext4_dirty_inode()  |
>>                     |                            |
>>                     |  ext4_dirty_inode()        |
>>                     |  trys to start an active   |
>>                     |  handle                    |
>>                     |                            |
>>                     |  block due to s_frozen     |
>> =======================================================================
>  Actuall, kjournald isn't needed for the deadlock at all.. Just the
> truncate and freeze threads are enough. So you can simplify the
> description.
Agree.

>
>> Messages reported by Amir:
>> while running phoronix test suite and taking a snapshot every 10 seconds,
>> the following hang happened during tiobench [64MB Random Write - 32 Threads]:
>>
>> [20868.207441] snapshot: snapshot (913) created
>> [21000.040021] [Hardware Error]: Machine check events logged
>> [21001.300039] INFO: task jbd2/sda6-8:3560 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>> [21001.300043] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables
>> this message.
>> [21001.300048] jbd2/sda6-8     D 0000000000000000     0  3560      2 0x00000000
>> [21001.300055]  ffff880037a8fce0 0000000000000046 0000000000000000
>> ffff880100000000
>> [21001.300063]  0000000000014000 ffff880037a1bf40 ffff880037a1c2c0
>> ffff880037a8ffd8
>> [21001.300070]  ffff880037a1c2c8 0000000000014000 ffff880037a8e010
>> 0000000000014000
>> [21001.300078] Call Trace:
>> [21001.300089]  [<ffffffff8124ebcc>] jbd2_journal_commit_transaction+
>> 0x1cc/0x15d0
>> [21001.300095]  [<ffffffff815bea70>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x30/0x40
>> [21001.300102]  [<ffffffff810746dc>] ? lock_timer_base+0x3c/0x70
>> [21001.300108]  [<ffffffff81075ae0>] ? try_to_del_timer_sync+0x90/0x100
>> [21001.300113]  [<ffffffff81088d30>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40
>> [21001.300118]  [<ffffffff81075bf2>] ? del_timer_sync+0xa2/0xe0
>> [21001.300123]  [<ffffffff81075b50>] ? del_timer_sync+0x0/0xe0
>> [21001.300129]  [<ffffffff81254b71>] kjournald2+0xc1/0x220
>> [21001.300133]  [<ffffffff81088d30>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40
>> [21001.300138]  [<ffffffff81254ab0>] ? kjournald2+0x0/0x220
>> [21001.300143]  [<ffffffff810887d6>] kthread+0xb6/0xc0
>> [21001.300149]  [<ffffffff8100ce24>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
>> [21001.300154]  [<ffffffff815bea70>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x30/0x40
>> [21001.300158]  [<ffffffff815bf054>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30
>> [21001.300163]  [<ffffffff81088720>] ? kthread+0x0/0xc0
>> [21001.300167]  [<ffffffff8100ce20>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10
>> [21001.300171] INFO: lockdep is turned off.
>> [21001.300175] INFO: task tiotest:6277 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>> [21001.300178] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables
>> this message.
>> [21001.300182] tiotest         D 0000000000000000     0  6277   6276 0x00000000
>> [21001.300188]  ffff88003789d9d8 0000000000000046 ffff88005b87a068
>> 0000000000000002
>> [21001.300196]  0000000000014000 ffff8800ac435ee0 ffff8800ac436260
>> ffff88003789dfd8
>> [21001.300203]  ffff8800ac436268 0000000000014000 ffff88003789c010
>> 0000000000014000
>> [21001.300211] Call Trace:
>> [21001.300216]  [<ffffffff81088fe0>] ? prepare_to_wait+0x60/0x90
>> [21001.300236]  [<ffffffffa0297745>] __next4_journal_start+0x85/0x1d0 [next4]
>> [21001.300241]  [<ffffffff815beb1b>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x2b/0x40
>> [21001.300246]  [<ffffffff81088d30>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40
>> [21001.300259]  [<ffffffffa027d98e>] next4_dirty_inode+0x2e/0x70 [next4]
>> [21001.300266]  [<ffffffff811942e8>] __mark_inode_dirty+0x38/0x220
>> [21001.300283]  [<ffffffffa02af022>] __next4_free_blocks+0xb42/0xeb0 [next4]
>> [21001.300300]  [<ffffffffa02a297e>] next4_ext_truncate+0x8ce/0xa90 [next4]
>> [21001.300315]  [<ffffffffa0283921>] next4_truncate+0x601/0x860 [next4]
>> [21001.300331]  [<ffffffffa02a6da3>] ? __next4_handle_dirty_metadata+0x83/0x1d0
>> [next4]
>> [21001.300344]  [<ffffffffa027ccc0>] ? next4_mark_iloc_dirty+0x480/0x6b0 [next4]
>> [21001.300358]  [<ffffffffa027d7b6>] ? next4_mark_inode_dirty+0xa6/0x250 [next4]
>> [21001.300372]  [<ffffffffa0285c00>] next4_evict_inode+0x3a0/0x490 [next4]
>> [21001.300378]  [<ffffffff81186c44>] evict+0x24/0xb0
>> [21001.300382]  [<ffffffff811872a6>] iput+0x1f6/0x2f0
>> [21001.300388]  [<ffffffff8117b06f>] do_unlinkat+0x11f/0x1e0
>> [21001.300394]  [<ffffffff815be0d9>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
>> [21001.300399]  [<ffffffff8117b146>] sys_unlink+0x16/0x20
>> [21001.300405]  [<ffffffff8100bf82>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>> [21001.300408] INFO: lockdep is turned off.
>> [21001.300411] INFO: task chsnap:6510 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>> [21001.300414] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables
>> this message.
>> [21001.300418] chsnap          D 0000000000000000     0  6510   6481 0x00000000
>> [21001.300424]  ffff8800ac2ffba8 0000000000000046 0000000000000000
>> ffff880107fe5688
>> [21001.300431]  0000000000014000 ffff8800ac599fa0 ffff8800ac59a320
>> [21001.300439]  ffff8800ac59a328 0000000000014000 ffff8800ac2fe010
>> 0000000000014000
>> [21001.300447] Call Trace:
>> [21001.300452]  [<ffffffff8124cc55>] jbd2_journal_lock_updates+0x95/0x100
>> [21001.300457]  [<ffffffff81088d30>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40
>> [21001.300473]  [<ffffffffa0295756>] next4_freeze+0x46/0xa0 [next4]
>> [21001.300479]  [<ffffffff811a27e4>] ? __sync_blockdev+0x24/0x50
>> [21001.300484]  [<ffffffff8116ec2d>] freeze_super+0x7d/0x100
>> [21001.300500]  [<ffffffffa02bbe48>] next4_snapshot_take+0x268/0xa70 [next4]
>> [21001.300506]  [<ffffffff8124c910>] ? jbd2_journal_stop+0x1e0/0x2c0
>> [21001.300520]  [<ffffffffa0287558>] next4_ioctl+0xc28/0xcc0 [next4]
>> [21001.300527]  [<ffffffff812f66b4>] ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x54/0x150
>> [21001.300532]  [<ffffffff8117e175>] do_vfs_ioctl+0xa5/0x5a0
>> [21001.300537]  [<ffffffff8109e6ad>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
>> [21001.300542]  [<ffffffff8116dc5c>] ? fget_light+0x1ec/0x370
>> [21001.300547]  [<ffffffff8117e711>] sys_ioctl+0xa1/0xb0
>> [21001.300552]  [<ffffffff8100bf82>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>> [21001.300555] INFO: lockdep is turned off.
>  Not sure these traces are needed in the changelog. The description in the
> beginning seems to be enough to understand the problem so I'd prefer a
> shorter description. But I leave this up to you.
Agree.
>
>> Reported-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...rs.sf.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/ext4/super.c |   49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>  1 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
>> index ccfa686..f35b53e 100644
>> --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
>> +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
>> @@ -242,27 +242,49 @@ static void ext4_put_nojournal(handle_t *handle)
>>   * journal_end calls result in the superblock being marked dirty, so
>>   * that sync() will call the filesystem's write_super callback if
>>   * appropriate.
>> + *
>> + * To avoid j_barrier hold in userspace when a user calls freeze(),
>> + * ext4 prevents a new handle from being started by s_frozen, which
>> + * is in an upper layer.
>>   */
>>  handle_t *ext4_journal_start_sb(struct super_block *sb, int nblocks)
>>  {
>>       journal_t *journal;
>> +     handle_t  *handle;
>>
>>       if (sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)
>>               return ERR_PTR(-EROFS);
>>
>> -     vfs_check_frozen(sb, SB_FREEZE_TRANS);
>> -     /* Special case here: if the journal has aborted behind our
>> -      * backs (eg. EIO in the commit thread), then we still need to
>> -      * take the FS itself readonly cleanly. */
>>       journal = EXT4_SB(sb)->s_journal;
>> -     if (journal) {
>> -             if (is_journal_aborted(journal)) {
>> -                     ext4_abort(sb, "Detected aborted journal");
>> -                     return ERR_PTR(-EROFS);
>> -             }
>> -             return jbd2_journal_start(journal, nblocks);
>> +     if (!journal)
>> +             /*
>> +              * Under no-journal mode, vfs_check_frozen() is not neeed.
>> +              */
>  Why is this? Previously we waited also in the nojournal case and I don't
> see anything that would stop modifications in the nojournal case after your
> change...

I think that ext4 in the nojournal case should do as filesystems
without journal, such as ext2.   ext4_ext_truncate() upwrite
i_data_sem only if ext4_journal_extend() fails before
ext4_journal_restart() is called, ext4_journal_extend() however always
succeeds in nojournal case.

I am not sure if I am right.

>
>> +             return ext4_get_nojournal();
>> +
>> +     /*
>> +      * Before vfs_check_frozen(), the current handle should be allowed
>> +      * to finish, otherwise deadlock would happen when the filesystem
>> +      * is freezed && active handles are not stopped.
>> +      */
>> +     handle = ext4_journal_current_handle();
>> +     if (handle) {
>> +             BUG_ON(!(handle->h_transaction->t_journal == journal));
>> +             handle->h_ref++;
>> +             return handle;
>  Please use jbd2_journal_start() to get the reference for you (although I
> agree it's slightly inefficient). I don't like messing with JBD2 internals
> like handle use counts in ext4.
Agree.

Thank you.
>
>>       }
>> -     return ext4_get_nojournal();
>> +
>> +     /*
>> +      * Special case here: if the journal has aborted behind our
>> +      * backs (eg. EIO in the commit thread), then we still need to
>> +      * take the FS itself readonly cleanly.
>> +      */
>> +     vfs_check_frozen(sb, SB_FREEZE_TRANS);
>> +     if (is_journal_aborted(journal)) {
>> +             ext4_abort(sb, "Detected aborted journal");
>> +             return ERR_PTR(-EROFS);
>> +     }
>> +     return jbd2_journal_start(journal, nblocks);
>>  }
>>
>>  /*
>> @@ -4131,6 +4153,11 @@ static int ext4_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
>>  /*
>>   * LVM calls this function before a (read-only) snapshot is created.  This
>>   * gives us a chance to flush the journal completely and mark the fs clean.
>> + *
>> + * Note that only this function cannot bring a filesystem to be in a clean
>> + * state independently, because ext4 prevents a new handle from being started
>> + * by @sb->s_frozen, which stays in an upper layer.  It thus needs help from
>> + * the upper layer.
>>   */
>>  static int ext4_freeze(struct super_block *sb)
>>  {
>
>                                                                        Honza
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> SUSE Labs, CR
>



-- 
Best Wishes
Yongqiang Yang
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists