linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/2] vfs: Fix data corruption when 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140925093410.GC3096@quack.suse.cz>
Date:	Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:34:10 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vfs: Fix data corruption when blocksize < pagesize
 for mmaped data

On Thu 25-09-14 11:32:16, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:03:22PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > ->page_mkwrite() is used by filesystems to allocate blocks under a page
> > which is becoming writeably mmapped in some process' address space. This
> > allows a filesystem to return a page fault if there is not enough space
> > available, user exceeds quota or similar problem happens, rather than
> > silently discarding data later when writepage is called.
> > 
> > However VFS fails to call ->page_mkwrite() in all the cases where
> > filesystems need it when blocksize < pagesize. For example when
> > blocksize = 1024, pagesize = 4096 the following is problematic:
> >   ftruncate(fd, 0);
> >   pwrite(fd, buf, 1024, 0);
> >   map = mmap(NULL, 1024, PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
> >   map[0] = 'a';       ----> page_mkwrite() for index 0 is called
> >   ftruncate(fd, 10000); /* or even pwrite(fd, buf, 1, 10000) */
> >   mremap(map, 1024, 10000, 0);
> >   map[4095] = 'a';    ----> no page_mkwrite() called
> > 
> > At the moment ->page_mkwrite() is called, filesystem can allocate only
> > one block for the page because i_size == 1024. Otherwise it would create
> > blocks beyond i_size which is generally undesirable. But later at
> > ->writepage() time, we also need to store data at offset 4095 but we
> > don't have block allocated for it.
> ...
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
> > +/**
> > + * block_create_hole - handle creation of a hole in a file
> > + * @inode:	inode where the hole is created
> > + * @from:	offset in bytes where the hole starts
> > + * @to:		offset in bytes where the hole ends.
> 
> This function doesn't create holes.  It also manipulates page state,
> not block state.  Probably could do with a better name, but I'm not
> sure what a better name is - something like
> pagecache_extend_isize(old_eof, new_eof)?
  Yeah, you are right. I should be actually better off moving that function
to mm/truncate.c. Regarding the name I agree block_create_hole() isn't
very accurate but I don't like pagecache_extend_isize() too much either -
see below for reason.

> > +void block_create_hole(struct inode *inode, loff_t from, loff_t to)
> > +{
> > +	int bsize = 1 << inode->i_blkbits;
> > +	loff_t rounded_from;
> > +	struct page *page;
> > +	pgoff_t index;
> > +
> > +	WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&inode->i_mutex));
> > +	WARN_ON(to > inode->i_size);
> 
> We've already changed i_size, so shouldn't that be:
  Not quite. When you have 1k blocksize, filesize == 512 and you do
pwrite(file, buf, 1024, 8192);
  Then you want the function to be called for range 512 - 8192, however
i_size is already 9216. So the assertion is correct as is. This is also
the reason why I don't like pagecache_extend_isize() because it suggests
'to' is the final i_size but it's not.

Maybe the most simple interface would be to really call the function
pagecache_extend_isize(), let it take just 'to' and it will write the new
i_size and handle pagecache tricks. The extending writes will then be
handled by first calling pagecache_extend_isize() to extend to 'pos' and
then just i_size_write() the final size...

								Honza
> 	WARN_ON(to != inode->i_size);
> 
> > +
> > +	if (from >= to || bsize == PAGE_CACHE_SIZE)
> > +		return;
> > +	/* Currently last page will not have any hole block created? */
> > +	rounded_from = ALIGN(from, bsize);
> 
> That rounds down? or up? round_down/round_up are much better than
> ALIGN() because they tell you exactly what rounding was intended...
  Good point. I'll use round_up().

								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