linux-ext4 - [PATCH] ext4: make the extent_status code more robust against ENOMEM failures

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1373861557-15573-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu>
Date:	Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:12:37 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@...bao.com>
Subject: [PATCH] ext4: make the extent_status code more robust against ENOMEM failures

Some callers of ext4_es_remove_extent() and ext4_es_insert_extent()
may not be completely robust against ENOMEM failures (or the
consequences of reflecting ENOMEM back up to userspace may lead to
xfstest or user application failure).

To mitigate against this, when trying to insert an entry in the extent
status tree, try to shrink the inode's extent status tree before
returning ENOMEM.  If there are entries which don't record information
about extents under delayed allocations, freeing one of them is
preferable to returning ENOMEM.

Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@...bao.com>
---
 fs/ext4/extents_status.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents_status.c b/fs/ext4/extents_status.c
index 4b8df7f..91cb110 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/extents_status.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/extents_status.c
@@ -148,6 +148,8 @@ static int __es_remove_extent(struct inode *inode, ext4_lblk_t lblk,
 			      ext4_lblk_t end);
 static int __es_try_to_reclaim_extents(struct ext4_inode_info *ei,
 				       int nr_to_scan);
+static int __ext4_es_shrink(struct ext4_sb_info *sbi, int nr_to_scan,
+			    struct ext4_inode_info *locked_ei);
 
 int __init ext4_init_es(void)
 {
@@ -665,7 +667,13 @@ int ext4_es_insert_extent(struct inode *inode, ext4_lblk_t lblk,
 	err = __es_remove_extent(inode, lblk, end);
 	if (err != 0)
 		goto error;
+retry:
 	err = __es_insert_extent(inode, &newes);
+	if (err == -ENOMEM && __ext4_es_shrink(EXT4_SB(inode->i_sb), 1,
+					       EXT4_I(inode)))
+		goto retry;
+	if (err == -ENOMEM && !ext4_es_is_delayed(&newes))
+		err = 0;
 
 error:
 	write_unlock(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_es_lock);
@@ -744,8 +752,10 @@ static int __es_remove_extent(struct inode *inode, ext4_lblk_t lblk,
 	struct extent_status orig_es;
 	ext4_lblk_t len1, len2;
 	ext4_fsblk_t block;
-	int err = 0;
+	int err;
 
+retry:
+	err = 0;
 	es = __es_tree_search(&tree->root, lblk);
 	if (!es)
 		goto out;
@@ -780,6 +790,10 @@ static int __es_remove_extent(struct inode *inode, ext4_lblk_t lblk,
 			if (err) {
 				es->es_lblk = orig_es.es_lblk;
 				es->es_len = orig_es.es_len;
+				if ((err == -ENOMEM) &&
+				    __ext4_es_shrink(EXT4_SB(inode->i_sb), 1,
+						     EXT4_I(inode)))
+					goto retry;
 				goto out;
 			}
 		} else {
@@ -889,22 +903,14 @@ static int ext4_inode_touch_time_cmp(void *priv, struct list_head *a,
 		return -1;
 }
 
-static int ext4_es_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
+static int __ext4_es_shrink(struct ext4_sb_info *sbi, int nr_to_scan,
+			    struct ext4_inode_info *locked_ei)
 {
-	struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = container_of(shrink,
-					struct ext4_sb_info, s_es_shrinker);
 	struct ext4_inode_info *ei;
 	struct list_head *cur, *tmp;
 	LIST_HEAD(skiped);
-	int nr_to_scan = sc->nr_to_scan;
 	int ret, nr_shrunk = 0;
 
-	ret = percpu_counter_read_positive(&sbi->s_extent_cache_cnt);
-	trace_ext4_es_shrink_enter(sbi->s_sb, nr_to_scan, ret);
-
-	if (!nr_to_scan)
-		return ret;
-
 	spin_lock(&sbi->s_es_lru_lock);
 
 	/*
@@ -933,7 +939,7 @@ static int ext4_es_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
 			continue;
 		}
 
-		if (ei->i_es_lru_nr == 0)
+		if (ei->i_es_lru_nr == 0 || ei == locked_ei)
 			continue;
 
 		write_lock(&ei->i_es_lock);
@@ -952,6 +958,27 @@ static int ext4_es_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
 	list_splice_tail(&skiped, &sbi->s_es_lru);
 	spin_unlock(&sbi->s_es_lru_lock);
 
+	if (locked_ei && nr_shrunk == 0)
+		nr_shrunk = __es_try_to_reclaim_extents(ei, nr_to_scan);
+
+	return nr_shrunk;
+}
+
+static int ext4_es_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
+{
+	struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = container_of(shrink,
+					struct ext4_sb_info, s_es_shrinker);
+	int nr_to_scan = sc->nr_to_scan;
+	int ret, nr_shrunk;
+
+	ret = percpu_counter_read_positive(&sbi->s_extent_cache_cnt);
+	trace_ext4_es_shrink_enter(sbi->s_sb, nr_to_scan, ret);
+
+	if (!nr_to_scan)
+		return ret;
+
+	nr_shrunk = __ext4_es_shrink(sbi, nr_to_scan, NULL);
+
 	ret = percpu_counter_read_positive(&sbi->s_extent_cache_cnt);
 	trace_ext4_es_shrink_exit(sbi->s_sb, nr_shrunk, ret);
 	return ret;
-- 
1.7.12.rc0.22.gcdd159b

--
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