[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200619070854.z3dslhh7yebainhd@work>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 09:08:54 +0200
From: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc: "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ext4: fix potential negative array index in
do_split()
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 08:41:22AM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:19:04PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > If for any reason a directory passed to do_split() does not have enough
> > active entries to exceed half the size of the block, we can end up
> > iterating over all "count" entries without finding a split point.
> >
> > In this case, count == move, and split will be zero, and we will
> > attempt a negative index into map[].
> >
> > Guard against this by detecting this case, and falling back to
> > split-to-half-of-count instead; in this case we will still have
> > plenty of space (> half blocksize) in each split block.
> >
> > Fixes: ef2b02d3e617 ("ext34: ensure do_split leaves enough free space in both blocks")
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/namei.c b/fs/ext4/namei.c
> > index a8aca4772aaa..8b60881f07ee 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/namei.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/namei.c
> > @@ -1858,7 +1858,7 @@ static struct ext4_dir_entry_2 *do_split(handle_t *handle, struct inode *dir,
> > blocksize, hinfo, map);
> > map -= count;
> > dx_sort_map(map, count);
> > - /* Split the existing block in the middle, size-wise */
> > + /* Ensure that neither split block is over half full */
> > size = 0;
> > move = 0;
> > for (i = count-1; i >= 0; i--) {
> > @@ -1868,8 +1868,18 @@ static struct ext4_dir_entry_2 *do_split(handle_t *handle, struct inode *dir,
> > size += map[i].size;
> > move++;
> > }
> > - /* map index at which we will split */
> > - split = count - move;
> > + /*
> > + * map index at which we will split
> > + *
> > + * If the sum of active entries didn't exceed half the block size, just
> > + * split it in half by count; each resulting block will have at least
> > + * half the space free.
> > + */
> > + if (i > 0)
> > + split = count - move;
> > + else
> > + split = count/2;
>
> Won't we have exactly the same problem as we did before your commit
> ef2b02d3e617cb0400eedf2668f86215e1b0e6af ? Since we do not know how much
> space we actually moved we might have not made enough space for the new
> entry ?
>
> Also since we have the move == count when the problem appears then it's
> clear that we never hit the condition
>
> 1865 → → /* is more than half of this entry in 2nd half of the block? */
> 1866 → → if (size + map[i].size/2 > blocksize/2)
> 1867 → → → break;
>
> in the loop. This is surprising but it means the the entries must have
> gaps between them that are small enough that we can't fit the entry
> right in ? Should not we try to compact it before splitting, or is it
> the case that this should have been done somewhere else ?
The other possibility is that map[i].size is not right and indeed there
seems to be a bug in dx_make_map()
map_tail->size = le16_to_cpu(de->rec_len);
should be
map_tail->size = ext4_rec_len_from_disk(de->rec_len, blocksize));
right ? Otherwise with large enough records the size will be smaller
than it really is.
A quick look at fs/ext4/namei.c reveals couple of places there rec_len
is used without the conversion and we should check whether it needs
fixing.
-Lukas
>
> If we really want ot be fair and we want to split it right in the middle
> of the entries size-wise then we need to keep track of of sum of the
> entries and decide based on that, not blocksize/2. But maybe the problem
> could be solved by compacting the entries together because the condition
> seems to rely on that.
>
> -Lukas
>
> > +
> > hash2 = map[split].hash;
> > continued = hash2 == map[split - 1].hash;
> > dxtrace(printk(KERN_INFO "Split block %lu at %x, %i/%i\n",
> >
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists