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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 26 Aug 2021 09:06:37 +0800
From:   yangerkun <yangerkun@...wei.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC:     "Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [QUESTION] question for commit 2d01ddc86606 ("ext4: save error
 info to sb through journal if available")



在 2021/8/25 18:25, Jan Kara 写道:
> 
> Hello Kun!
> 
> On Wed 25-08-21 10:13:03, yangerkun wrote:
>> There is a question about 2d01ddc86606 ("ext4: save error info to sb through
>> journal if available"). This commit describe that we can have checksum
>> failure with follow case:
>>
>> 1. ext4_handle_error will call ext4_commit_super which write directly to the
>> superblock
>> 2. At the same time, jounalled update of the superblock is ongoing
>>
>> However, after commit 05c2c00f3769 ("ext4: protect superblock modifications
>> with a buffer lock"), all the update for superblock and the csum will be
>> protected with buffer lock. It seems we won't get a csum error after that
>> commit and the journal logic in flush_stashed_error_work seems useless.
>>
>> Maybe there is something missing... Can you help to explain more for that...
> 
> You are correct that after commit 05c2c00f3769 the checksum will be
> correct. However there are also other problems that 2d01ddc86606 addresses
> and that are mentioned in the commit description like "writing inconsistent
> information". The fundamental problem is that you cannot mix journalled and
> non-journalled updates to any block. Because e.g. the unjournalled update
> could store to disk information that was changed only as part of the
> currently running transaction and if the machine crashes before the
> transaction commits, we have too new information in the block and thus
> inconsistent filesystem. Or in the other direction, journal replay can
> overwrite unjournalled modifications to the superblock if we crash at the
> right moment.

Got it! Thanks for your explain!

> 
> 								Honza
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists