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  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, 4 Apr 2019 12:18:23 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     "zhangyi (F)" <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, jack@...e.cz,
        adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, miaoxie@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: add inode to ordered data list when extending file
 without block allocation

On Thu 04-04-19 17:29:52, zhangyi (F) wrote:
> Currently we capture a NULL data exposure problem after a crash or
> poweroff when append writing a file in the data=ordered mode. The
> problem is that we were not add inode to the transaction's order data
> list when updating i_disksize without new block allocation no matter
> the delay allocated block feature is enabled or not.
> 
> write                           jbd2                    writeback
> append write in allocated block
> mark buffer dirty
> update i_disksize
> mark inode dirty
>                           commit transaction
>                           write inode
>                           (data exposure after a crash)
>                                                     write dirty buffer
> 
> It's fine in the case of new block allocation because we do this job in
> ext4_map_blocks(). To fix this problem, this patch add inode to current
> transaction's order data list after new data is copied and needing
> update i_disksize in the case of no block allocation.
> 
> Fixes: 06bd3c36a733ac ("ext4: fix data exposure after a crash")
> Fixes: f3b59291a69d0b ("ext4: remove calls to ext4_jbd2_file_inode() from delalloc write path")
> Signed-off-by: zhangyi (F) <yi.zhang@...wei.com>

Thanks for the patch. The current behavior is a deliberate decision.
data=ordered mode does guarantee there is no stale data visible in case of
crash. However it does not guarantee you cannot see zeros where data was
written. 

								Honza
> ---
>  fs/ext4/inode.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> index b32a57b..5cfa066 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> @@ -1419,6 +1419,16 @@ static int ext4_write_end(struct file *file,
>  	if (i_size_changed || inline_data)
>  		ext4_mark_inode_dirty(handle, inode);
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Updating i_disksize when extending file without block
> +	 * allocation, the newly written data where should be visible
> +	 * after transaction commit must be on transaction's ordered
> +	 * data list.
> +	 */
> +	if (copied && (i_size_changed & 0x2) &&
> +	    ext4_should_order_data(inode))
> +		ext4_jbd2_inode_add_write(handle, inode);
> +
>  	if (pos + len > inode->i_size && ext4_can_truncate(inode))
>  		/* if we have allocated more blocks and copied
>  		 * less. We will have blocks allocated outside
> @@ -3185,6 +3195,15 @@ static int ext4_da_write_end(struct file *file,
>  			 * bu greater than i_disksize.(hint delalloc)
>  			 */
>  			ext4_mark_inode_dirty(handle, inode);
> +
> +			/*
> +			 * Updating i_disksize when extending file without
> +			 * block allocation, the newly written data where
> +			 * should be visible after transaction commit must
> +			 * be on transaction's ordered data list.
> +			 */
> +			if (ext4_should_order_data(inode))
> +				ext4_jbd2_inode_add_write(handle, inode);
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -- 
> 2.7.4
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

Powered by blists - more mailing lists