| 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 linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 17:01:12 +0800
From: yangerkun <yangerkun@...wei.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
<yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: if zeroout fails fall back to splitting the extent
node
On 2021/11/23 17:27, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun 26-09-21 19:35:01, yangerkun wrote:
>> Rethink about this problem. Should we consider other place which call
>> ext4_issue_zeroout? Maybe it can trigger the problem too(in theory, not
>> really happened)...
>>
>> How about include follow patch which not only transfer ENOSPC to EIO. But
>> also stop to overwrite the error return by ext4_ext_insert_extent in
>> ext4_split_extent_at.
>>
>> Besides, 308c57ccf431 ("ext4: if zeroout fails fall back to splitting the
>> extent node") can work together with this patch.
>
> I've got back to this. The ext4_ext_zeroout() calls in
> ext4_split_extent_at() seem to be there as fallback when insertion of a new
> extent fails due to ENOSPC / EDQUOT. If even ext4_ext_zeroout(), then I
> think returning an error as the code does now is correct and we don't have
> much other option. Also we are really running out of disk space so I think
> returning ENOSPC is fine. What exact scenario are you afraid of?
I am afraid about the EDQUOT from ext4_ext_insert_extent may be
overwrite by ext4_ext_zeroout with ENOSPC. And this may lead to dead
loop since ext4_writepages will retry once get ENOSPC? Maybe I am wrong...
>
> Honza
>
>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
>> index c0de30f25185..66767ede235f 100644
>> --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
>> +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
>> @@ -3218,16 +3218,18 @@ static int ext4_split_extent_at(handle_t *handle,
>> goto out;
>>
>> if (EXT4_EXT_MAY_ZEROOUT & split_flag) {
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> if (split_flag &
>> (EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID1|EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID2)) {
>> if (split_flag & EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID1) {
>> - err = ext4_ext_zeroout(inode, ex2);
>> + ret = ext4_ext_zeroout(inode, ex2);
>> zero_ex.ee_block = ex2->ee_block;
>> zero_ex.ee_len = cpu_to_le16(
>>
>> ext4_ext_get_actual_len(ex2));
>> ext4_ext_store_pblock(&zero_ex,
>>
>> ext4_ext_pblock(ex2));
>> } else {
>> - err = ext4_ext_zeroout(inode, ex);
>> + ret = ext4_ext_zeroout(inode, ex);
>> zero_ex.ee_block = ex->ee_block;
>> zero_ex.ee_len = cpu_to_le16(
>>
>> ext4_ext_get_actual_len(ex));
>> @@ -3235,7 +3237,7 @@ static int ext4_split_extent_at(handle_t *handle,
>> ext4_ext_pblock(ex));
>> }
>> } else {
>> - err = ext4_ext_zeroout(inode, &orig_ex);
>> + ret = ext4_ext_zeroout(inode, &orig_ex);
>> zero_ex.ee_block = orig_ex.ee_block;
>> zero_ex.ee_len = cpu_to_le16(
>>
>> ext4_ext_get_actual_len(&orig_ex));
>> @@ -3243,7 +3245,7 @@ static int ext4_split_extent_at(handle_t *handle,
>> ext4_ext_pblock(&orig_ex));
>> }
>>
>> - if (!err) {
>> + if (!ret) {
>> /* update the extent length and mark as initialized
>> */
>> ex->ee_len = cpu_to_le16(ee_len);
>> ext4_ext_try_to_merge(handle, inode, path, ex);
>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
>> index d18852d6029c..95b970581864 100644
>> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
>> @@ -427,6 +427,9 @@ int ext4_issue_zeroout(struct inode *inode, ext4_lblk_t
>> lblk, ext4_fsblk_t pblk,
>> if (ret > 0)
>> ret = 0;
>>
>> + if (ret == -ENOSPC)
>> + ret = -EIO;
>> +
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> 在 2021/8/14 5:27, Theodore Ts'o 写道:
>>> If the underlying storage device is using thin-provisioning, it's
>>> possible for a zeroout operation to return ENOSPC.
>>>
>>> Commit df22291ff0fd ("ext4: Retry block allocation if we have free blocks
>>> left") added logic to retry block allocation since we might get free block
>>> after we commit a transaction. But the ENOSPC from thin-provisioning
>>> will confuse ext4, and lead to an infinite loop.
>>>
>>> Since using zeroout instead of splitting the extent node is an
>>> optimization, if it fails, we might as well fall back to splitting the
>>> extent node.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: yangerkun <yangerkun@...wei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> I've run this through my battery of tests, and it doesn't cause any
>>> regressions. Yangerkun, can you test this and see if this works for
>>> you?
>>>
>>> fs/ext4/extents.c | 5 +++--
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
>>> index 92ad64b89d9b..501516cadc1b 100644
>>> --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
>>> +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
>>> @@ -3569,7 +3569,7 @@ static int ext4_ext_convert_to_initialized(handle_t *handle,
>>> split_map.m_len - ee_block);
>>> err = ext4_ext_zeroout(inode, &zero_ex1);
>>> if (err)
>>> - goto out;
>>> + goto fallback;
>>> split_map.m_len = allocated;
>>> }
>>> if (split_map.m_lblk - ee_block + split_map.m_len <
>>> @@ -3583,7 +3583,7 @@ static int ext4_ext_convert_to_initialized(handle_t *handle,
>>> ext4_ext_pblock(ex));
>>> err = ext4_ext_zeroout(inode, &zero_ex2);
>>> if (err)
>>> - goto out;
>>> + goto fallback;
>>> }
>>> split_map.m_len += split_map.m_lblk - ee_block;
>>> @@ -3592,6 +3592,7 @@ static int ext4_ext_convert_to_initialized(handle_t *handle,
>>> }
>>> }
>>> +fallback:
>>> err = ext4_split_extent(handle, inode, ppath, &split_map, split_flag,
>>> flags);
>>> if (err > 0)
>>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists