linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix reservation release on invalidatepage for delalloc fs

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

Date:	Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:53:44 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix reservation release on invalidatepage for
 delalloc fs

On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Lukáš Czerner wrote:

> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 17:45:08 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
> To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix reservation release on invalidatepage for
>     delalloc fs
> 
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 
> > Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 11:16:51 -0400
> > From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
> > To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
> > Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix reservation release on invalidatepage for
> >     delalloc fs
> > 
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 10:25:01AM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > > On delalloc enabled file system on invalidatepage operation
> > > in ext4_da_page_release_reservation() we want to clear the delayed
> > > buffer and remove the extent covering the delayed buffer from the extent
> > > status tree.
> > > 
> > > However currently there is a bug where on the systems with page size >
> > > block size we will always remove extents from the start of the page
> > > regardless where the actual delayed buffers are positioned in the page.
> > 
> > Right, because we end up screwing up the accounting.
> > 
> > > @@ -1363,14 +1363,23 @@ static void ext4_da_page_release_reservation(struct page *page,
> > >  
> > >  		if ((offset <= curr_off) && (buffer_delay(bh))) {
> > >  			to_release++;
> > > +			contiguous_blks++;
> > >  			clear_buffer_delay(bh);
> > > +		} else if (contiguous_blks) {
> > > +			lblk = page->index <<
> > > +			       (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - inode->i_blkbits);
> > > +			lblk += (curr_off >> inode->i_blkbits) -
> > > +				contiguous_blks;
> > > +			ext4_es_remove_extent(inode, lblk, contiguous_blks);
> > > +			contiguous_blks = 0;
> > >  		}
> > >  		curr_off = next_off;
> > >  	} while ((bh = bh->b_this_page) != head);
> > 
> > Shouldn't we call ext4_es_remove_extent() on the portion of the page
> > containing the delayed allocation region, before we clear
> > contiguous_blks and resetting lblk?
> 
> Hi Ted,
> 
> right this is the point of the patch.
> 
> > 
> > For example, suppose we had the 4k page with a 1k block size, where
> > the first, second, and fourth blocks are delayed allocated.  With this
> > patch we will end up only clearing the extent status tree for the
> > fourth block, but not the first and second.
> 
> So when the first and second block are delayed, then the
> 
> if ((offset <= curr_off) && (buffer_delay(bh)))
> 
> will hit twice which means that we'll have contiguous_blks = 2
> 
> Now on the third block this condition will no longer be true
> (because buffer_delay(bh) will be false) and so we will hit
> 
> else if (contiguous_blks) {
> 
> then lblk will be: start of the page + (curr_off - contiguous_blks).
> curr_off at this point will point at third block (index 2) and
> contiguous_blks is 2. Which means that lblk will point at the start
> of the page - which is exactly right because the first delayed block
> is at the start of the page.
> 
> So ext4_es_remove_extent() will remove extent of two blocks starting
> from the end of the page - which means it removes first and second
> delayed block.
> 
> Now when we check fourth block the
> 
> if ((offset <= curr_off) && (buffer_delay(bh)))
> 
> will hit again, leaving contiguous_blks with 1, then we leave the
> while cycle and hit this:
> 
> if (contiguous_blks)
> 
> removing the extent starting at fourth block in the page removing
> one block (the fourth block in the page).
> 
> That's how I wrote the code, but maybe I am missing something ? I am
> a bit tired today already so my explanation is not very good, sorry.
> 
> Can you put your question in a form of a patch ?
> 
> Thanks!
> -Lukas

Hi Ted,

can you take a second look at the patch ?

Thanks!
-Lukas

> 
> > 
> >        	      	      	  	    - Ted
> > 
> --
> 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
>