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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:13:41 +0800
From:   "zhangyi (F)" <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC:     <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        <zhangxiaoxu5@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] ext4: fix inconsistency since reading old metadata
 from disk

On 2020/6/12 0:55, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 10:21:03AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> I have thought about this solution, we could add a hook in 'struct super_operations'
>>> and call it in blkdev_writepage() like blkdev_releasepage() does, and pick out a
>>> wrapper from block_write_full_page() to pass our endio handler in, something like
>>> this.
>>>
>>> static const struct super_operations ext4_sops = {
>>> ...
>>> 	.bdev_write_page = ext4_bdev_write_page,
>>> ...
>>> };
>>>
>>> static int blkdev_writepage(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc)
>>> {
>>> 	struct super_block *super = BDEV_I(page->mapping->host)->bdev.bd_super;
>>>
>>> 	if (super && super->s_op->bdev_write_page)
>>> 		return super->s_op->bdev_write_page(page, blkdev_get_block, wbc);
>>>
>>> 	return block_write_full_page(page, blkdev_get_block, wbc);
>>> }
>>>
>>> But I'm not sure it's a optimal ieda. So I continue to realize the "wb_err"
>>> solution now ?
>>
>> The above idea looks good to me. I'm fine with either that solution or
>> "wb_err" idea so maybe let's leave it for Ted to decide...
> 
> My preference would be to be able to get the (error from the callback
> right away.  My reasoning behind that is (a) it allows the file system
> to be notified about the problem right away, (b) in the case of a file
> system resize, we _really_ want to know about the failure ASAP, so we
> can fail the resize before we start allocating inodes and blocks to
> use the new space, and (c) over time, we might be able to add some
> more intelligence handling of some write errors.
> 
> For example, we already have a way of handling CRC errors when we are
> reading an allocation bitmap; we simply avoid allocating blocks and
> inodes from that blockgroup.  Over time, we could theoretically do
> other things to try to recover from some write errors --- for example,
> we could try allocating a new block for an extent tree block, and try
> writing it, and if that succeeds, updating its parent node to point at
> the new location.  Is it worth it to try to add that kind of
> complexity?  I'm really not sure; at the end of the day, it might be
> simpler to just call ext4_error() and abort using the entire file
> system until a system administrator can sort out the mess.  But I
> think (a) and (b) are still reasons for doing this by intercepting the
> writeback error from the buffer head.
> 

Yeah, it make sense to me, I will realize this callback solution.

Thanks,
Yi.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists