linux-ext4 - Re: BUG in ext4_ind_remove

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3a901543-60cf-6658-cb9f-45e567ae2151@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 8 Mar 2022 09:58:49 -0800
From:   Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...aro.org>
To:     Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BUG in ext4_ind_remove_space

On 3/6/22 21:45, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> On 22/03/04 01:38AM, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
>> On 22/03/03 07:37AM, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
>>> On 3/3/22 06:56, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
>>>> On 22/03/02 03:14PM, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
>>>>> On 2/25/22 11:19, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
>>>>>>> I can verify this sometime next week when I get back to it.
>>>>>>> But thanks for reporting the issue :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Next week is perfectly fine. Thanks for looking into it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ritesh,
>>>>> Did you have chance to look into this?
>>>>> If you want I can send a patch that fixes the off by 1 calculation error.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Tadeusz,
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to look at that path a bit more before sending that patch.
>>>> Last analysis by me was more of a cursory look at the kernel dmesg log which you
>>>> had shared.
>>>>
>>>> In case if you want to pursue that issue and spend time on it, then feel free to
>>>> do it.
>>>>
>>>> I got pulled into number of other things last week and this week. So didn't get
>>>> a chance to look into it yet. I hope to look into this soon (if no one else
>>>> picks up :))
>>>
>>> I'm not familiar with the internals of ext4 implementation so I would rather
>>> have someone who knows it look at it.
>>
>> No problem. I am willing to look into this anyways.
>> btw, this issue could be seen easily with below cmd on non-extent ext4 FS.
>>
>> sudo xfs_io -f -c "truncate 0x4010040c000" -c "fsync" -c "fpunch 0x1000000 0xffefffff000" testfile
> 
> Just FYI - The change which we discussed to fix the max_block to max_end_block, is not correct.
> Since it will still leave 1 block at the end after punch operation, if the file has s_bitmap_maxbytes size.
> This is due to the fact that, "end" is expected to be 1 block after the end of last block.
> 
> Will try look into it to see how can we fix this.
> 
> 1210 /**
> 1211  *      ext4_ind_remove_space - remove space from the range
> 1212  *      @handle: JBD handle for this transaction
> 1213  *      @inode: inode we are dealing with
> 1214  *      @start: First block to remove
> 1215  *      @end:   One block after the last block to remove (exclusive)
> 1216  *
> 1217  *      Free the blocks in the defined range (end is exclusive endpoint of
> 1218  *      range). This is used by ext4_punch_hole().
> 1219  */
> 1220 int ext4_ind_remove_space(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
> 1221                           ext4_lblk_t start, ext4_lblk_t end)
> 

Hi Ritesh,
Thanks for update. Let me know if I can be of any help to you.

-- 
Thanks,
Tadeusz