linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCHv3 1/4] generic/468: Add another falloc test entry

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20220405110603.qqxyivpo4vzj5tlt@riteshh-domain>
Date:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 16:36:03 +0530
From:   Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     fstests <fstests@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/4] generic/468: Add another falloc test entry

On 22/04/04 09:28AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 06:24:20PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > From: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
> >
> > Add another falloc test entry which could hit a kernel bug
> > with ext4 fast_commit feature w/o below kernel commit [1].
> >
> > <log>
> > [  410.888496][ T2743] BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in ext4_mb_mark_bb+0x26a/0x6c0
> > [  410.890432][ T2743] Read of size 8 at addr ffff888171886000 by task mount/2743
> >
> > This happens when falloc -k size is huge which spans across more than
> > 1 flex block group in ext4. This causes a bug in fast_commit replay
> > code which is fixed by kernel commit at [1].
> >
> > [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git/commit/?h=dev&id=bfdc502a4a4c058bf4cbb1df0c297761d528f54d
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  tests/generic/468     | 8 ++++++++
> >  tests/generic/468.out | 2 ++
> >  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/generic/468 b/tests/generic/468
> > index 95752d3b..5e73cff9 100755
> > --- a/tests/generic/468
> > +++ b/tests/generic/468
> > @@ -34,6 +34,13 @@ _scratch_mkfs >/dev/null 2>&1
> >  _require_metadata_journaling $SCRATCH_DEV
> >  _scratch_mount
> >
> > +# blocksize and fact are used in the last case of the fsync/fdatasync test.
> > +# This is mainly trying to test recovery operation in case where the data
> > +# blocks written, exceeds the default flex group size (32768*4096*16) in ext4.
> > +blocks=32768
> > +blocksize=4096
>
> Block size can change based on mkfs parameters. You should extract
> this dynamically from the filesystem the test is being run on.
>

Yes, but we still have kept just 4096 because, anything bigger than that like
65536 might require a bigger disk size itself to test. The overall size
requirement of the disk will then become ~36G (32768 * 65536 * 18)
Hence I went ahead with 4096 which is good enough for testing.

But sure, I will add a comment explaining why we have hardcoded it to 4096
so that others don't get confused. Larger than this size disk anyway doesn't get
tested much right?


> > +fact=18
>
> What is "fact" supposed to mean?
>
> Indeed, wouldn't this simply be better as something like:
>
> larger_than_ext4_fg_size=$((32768 * $blksize * 18))
>
> And then
>
> >  testfile=$SCRATCH_MNT/testfile
> >
> >  # check inode metadata after shutdown
> > @@ -85,6 +92,7 @@ for i in fsync fdatasync; do
> >  	test_falloc $i "-k " 1024
> >  	test_falloc $i "-k " 4096
> >  	test_falloc $i "-k " 104857600
> > +	test_falloc $i "-k " $(($blocks*$blocksize*$fact))
>
> 	test_falloc $i "-k " $larger_than_ext4_fg_size
>

Yes, looks good to me. Thanks for suggestion.


> And just scrub all the sizes from the golden output?
>

This won't be needed since I still would like to go with 4096 blocksize,
to avoid a large disk size requirement which anyway won't be tested much.

If this sounds good to you, I will fix rest of the changes as discussed in
the next revision.

-ritesh