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:	Thu, 28 May 2015 10:26:52 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
cc:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Try to initialize all groups we can in case of
 failure on ppc64

On Wed, 27 May 2015, Andreas Dilger wrote:

> Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 14:07:03 -0600
> From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
> To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
> Cc: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Try to initialize all groups we can in case of
>     failure on ppc64
> 
> On May 27, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On 5/27/15 5:25 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> >> Currently on the machines with page size > block size when initializing
> >> block group buddy cache we initialize it for all the block group bitmaps
> >> in the page. However in the case of read error, checksum error, or if
> >> a single bitmap is in any way corrupted we would fail to initialize all
> >> of the bitmaps. This is problematic because we will not have access to
> >> the other allocation groups even though those might be perfectly fine
> >> and usable.
> >> 
> >> Fix this by reading all the bitmaps instead of error out on the first
> >> problem and simply skip the bitmaps which were either not read properly,
> >> or are not valid.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
> >> ---
> >> fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 11 ++++++++---
> >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> >> index 8d1e602..7e28007 100644
> >> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> >> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> >> @@ -882,10 +882,8 @@ static int ext4_mb_init_cache(struct page *page, char *incore)
> >> 
> >> 	/* wait for I/O completion */
> >> 	for (i = 0, group = first_group; i < groups_per_page; i++, group++) {
> >> -		if (bh[i] && ext4_wait_block_bitmap(sb, group, bh[i])) {
> >> +		if (bh[i] && ext4_wait_block_bitmap(sb, group, bh[i]))
> >> 			err = -EIO;
> >> -			goto out;
> >> -		}
> >> 	}
> >> 
> >> 	first_block = page->index * blocks_per_page;
> >> @@ -898,6 +896,13 @@ static int ext4_mb_init_cache(struct page *page, char *incore)
> >> 			/* skip initialized uptodate buddy */
> >> 			continue;
> >> 
> >> +		if (!buffer_verified(bh[group - first_group]) ||
> >> +		    !buffer_uptodate(bh[group - first_group]))
> >> +			/* Skip faulty bitmaps */
> >> +			continue;
> >> +		else
> >> +			err = 0;
> >> +
> > 
> > Hm, ext4_wait_block_bitmap() can fail 3 ways (buffer not update, or
> > not verified, but also if ext4_get_group_desc fails), but this only
> > checks 2 of those, right?
> > 
> > If ext4_get_group_desc fails, we'll have a bh which is new, may or
> > may not be uptodate, and ... I guess it won't be verified in that
> > case either, will it.  So that's probably ok.
> > 
> > In fact, is the (!verified) test enough, here? (IOWs, could it
> > possibly be verified, but not uptodate?) 
> > 
> > 
> > In the bigger picture - if the filesystem is corrupt (or the device
> > is bad) in this way, do we really *want* to continue?  What are the
> > consequences of doing so, and have you tested with a filesystem
> > partially-initialized like this?
> > 
> > Thinking more about it ... (sorry for the stream of consciousness
> > here) - if validation fails, encountering this sort of error will
> > trigger remount,ro or panic unless errors=continue, right?  But I
> > guess that's still the default, so maybe we do expect to continue.
> > So I go back to the question of: have you tested with partial init
> > like this, to be sure we don't fall off some cliff later?
> 
> There is also the check in ext4_validate_block_bitmap() that will
> fail if the bitmap is bad in some way.  At least that is marking
> the bitmap bad in the group descriptor so that it is skipped for
> later allocations.  Probably the same needs to be done here.

But if read fails it does not mean that the bitmap is bad. It might
be transient error and we might succeed next time. We only want to
hard fail if there are no more block groups to try - I am working on
the patch right now.

> 
> It also makes sense to fail the mount outright if too many of the
> bitmaps are bad, or only mount it read-only, since it will otherwise
> be unusable.

Have not tried the mount case yet as I usually make the device fail
after the mount. But then it becomes the question of how many bad
bitmaps is bad. Note that we'll always leave trace in the logs that
the file system is not in the best shape and we will fail eventually
if we run out of bitmaps to try.

Thanks!
-Lukas


> 
> Cheers, Andreas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
--
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