linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: revert i_data_sum locking cleanups for dioread

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: <20160219141925.GA20062@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:19:25 -0500
From:	Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: revert i_data_sum locking cleanups for
 dioread_nolock

* Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:09:56PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > OK, I had a look into this. So I'm not 100% what has happened but the
> > following looks likely: Current io_end handling can overwrite io_end
> > pointer in the inode in dioread_nolock mode (nothing prevents unlocked DIO
> > to overwrite pointer of locked DIO and then clear it out). I suspect that
> > the change in i_data_sem locking made this race more visible. Attached
> > patch should fix the issue (I don't see failures of generic/300 with it in
> > dioread_nolock mode). Can you consider this instead of a revert Eric sent?
> 
> Thanks!  That does appear to be it. I dropped the revert, confirmed
> that I could still trivially reproduce the failure, applied patch,
> and ran the test 10 times ("kvm-xfstests -C 10 -c dioread_nolock
> generic/300") and it passed with flying colors.
> 
> > I have also a more complete rewrite of io_end handling which makes the code
> > more comprehensible and avoids storing io_end pointer in the inode (thus
> > avoids similar pitfalls in future) but that is a 4.6 matter. I'll submit
> > the rewrite once xfstests runs complete.
> 
> Great, thanks!
> 
> 					- Ted

I ran the same ten test runs (kvm-xfstests -c dioread_nolock generic/300) on
x86_64 and a full test run (kvm-xfstests -g auto) with the patch applied to
4.5-rc4 without regressions relative to my -rc4 baseline results.  Looks
good to me.

Tested-by: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>


--
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