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  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, 1 Oct 2020 09:46:32 -0300
From:   Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mfo@...onical.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        dann frazier <dann.frazier@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/4] ext4/jbd2: data=journal: write-protect pages
 on transaction commit

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 4:34 AM Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> On Wed 30-09-20 19:59:44, Mauricio Faria de Oliveira wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 8:37 AM Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon 28-09-20 16:40:59, Mauricio Faria de Oliveira wrote:
> > > > Hey Jan,
> > > >
> > > > This series implements your suggestions for the RFC PATCH v3 set [1].
> > > >
> > > > That addressed the issue you confirmed with block_page_mkwrite() [2].
> > > > There's no "JBD2: Spotted dirty metadata buffer" message in over 72h
> > > > runs across 3 VMs (it used to happen within a few hours.) *Thanks!*
> > > >
> > > > I added Reviewed-by: tags for the patches/changes you mentioned.
> > > > The only changes from v3 are patch 3 which is new, and contains
> > > > the 2 fixes to ext4_page_mkwrite(); and patch 4 changed 'struct
> > > > writeback_control.nr_to_write' from ~0ULL to LONG_MAX, since it
> > > > is signed long (~0ULL overflows to -1; kudos, kernel test robot!)
> > > >
> > > > It looks almost good on fstests: zero regressions on data=ordered,
> > > > and two apparently flaky tests data=journal (generic/347 _passed_
> > > > 1/6 times with the patch, and generic/547 failed 1/6 times.)
> > >
> > > Cool. Neither of these tests has anything to do with mmap. The first test
> > > checks what happens when thin provisioned storage runs out of space (and
> > > that fs remains consistent), the second tests that fsync flushed properly
> > > all data and that it can be seen after a crash. So I'm reasonably confident
> > > that it isn't caused by your patches. It still might be a bug in
> > > data=journal implementation though but that would be something for another
> > > patch series :).
> > >
> >
> > Hey Jan,
> >
> > That's good to hear! Now that the patchset seems to be in good shape,
> > I worked on testing it these last 2 days. Good and mixed-feelings news. :-)
> >
> > 1) For ext4 first, I have put 2 VMs to run fstests in a loop overnight,
> > (original and patched kernels, ~20 runs each). It looks like the patched VM
> > has more variance of failed/flaky tests, but the "average failure set" holds.
> >
> > I think some of the failures were flaky or timing related, because when I ran
> > some tests, e.g. generic/371 a hundred times (./check -i 100 generic/371)
> > then it only failed 6 out of 100 times. So I didn't look much more into it, but
> > should you feel like recommending a more careful look, I'll be happy to do it.
> >
> > For documentation purposes, the results on v5.9-rc7 and next-20200930,
> > showing no "permanent" regressions. Good news :)
> >
> >     data=ordered:
> >     Failures: ext4/045 generic/044 generic/045 generic/046 generic/051
> > generic/223 generic/388 generic/465 generic/475 generic/553
> > generic/554 generic/555 generic/565 generic/611
> >
> >     data=journal:
> >     Failures: ext4/045 generic/051 generic/223 generic/347 generic/388
> > generic/441 generic/475 generic/553 generic/554 generic/555
> > generic/565 generic/611
> >
> > 2) For OCFS2, I just had to change where we set the callbacks in (patch 2.)
> > (I'll include that in the next, hopefully non-RFC patchset, with
> > Andreas suggestions.)
> >
> > Then a local mount also has no regressions on "stress-ng --class filesystem,io".
> > Good news too :)  For reference, the steps:
> >
> >     # mkfs.ocfs2 --mount local $DEV
> >     # mount $DEV $MNT
> >     # cd $MNT
> >     # stress-ng --sequential 0 --class filesystem,io
>
> OK, these look sane. Nothing that would particularly worry me wrt this
> patch set although some of those errors (e.g. the flaky generic/371 test
> or generic/441 failure) would warrant closer look.
>

Sure, I'll check the flaky ones and follow up w/ a more detailed report.

Just to clarify on generic/441, it's not a regression or flaky; it fails
consistently on original/patched kernels (above lists apply to both.)

But absolutely generic/371 failing randomly on pwrite() _is_ interesting.

> > 3) Now, the mixed-feelings news.
> >
> > The synthetic test-case/patches I had written clearly show that the
> > patchset works:
> > - In the original kernel, userspace can write to buffers during
> > commit; and it moves on.
> > - In the patched kernel, userspace cannot write to buffers during
> > commit; it blocks.
> >
> > However, the heavy-hammer testing with 'stress-ng --mmap 4xNCPUs --mmap-file'
> > then crashing the kernel via sysrq-trigger, and trying to mount the
> > filesystem again,
> > sometimes still can find invalid checksums, thus journal recovery/mount fails.
> >
> >     [   98.194809] JBD2: Invalid checksum recovering data block 109704 in log
> >     [   98.201853] JBD2: Invalid checksum recovering data block 69959 in log
> >     [   98.339859] JBD2: recovery failed
> >     [   98.340581] EXT4-fs (vdc): error loading journal
> >
> > So, despite the test exercising mmap() and the patchset being for mmap(),
> > apparently there is more happening that also needs changes. (Weird; but
> > I will try to debug that test-case behavior deeper, to find what's going on.)
> >
> > This patchset does address a problem, so should we move on with this one,
> > and as you mentioned, "that would be something for another patch series :)" ?
>
> Thanks for the really throughout testing! If you can debug where the
> problem is still lurking fast, then cool, we can still fix it in this patch
> series. If not, then I'm fine with just pushing what we have because
> conceptually that seems like a sane thing to do anyway and we can fix the
> remaining problem afterwards.

Understood. I'll be able to look at this next week, which should be rc8 [1].
Would it be good enough, timing wise, to send a non-RFC series with
what we have (this other issue fixed or not) by the end of next week?

Thanks!
Mauricio

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/CAHk-=whAe_n6JDyu40A15vnWs5PTU0QYX6t6-TbNeefanau6MA@mail.gmail.com/


>
>                                                                 Honza
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
> SUSE Labs, CR

--
Mauricio Faria de Oliveira

Powered by blists - more mailing lists