| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <09622c2f-6cf7-79c9-2624-c0c0835d125d@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2023 17:16:10 +0800
From: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC: <tytso@....edu>, <jack@...e.com>, <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yi.zhang@...wei.com>,
<libaokun1@...wei.com>, <zhanchengbin1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] jbd2: Fix data missing when reusing bh which is ready
to be checkpointed
在 2023/1/6 22:22, Jan Kara 写道:
Hi Jan, thanks for reviewing.Some discussions below:
>> diff --git a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
>> index 6a404ac1c178..06a5e7961ef2 100644
>> --- a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
>> +++ b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
>> @@ -1010,36 +1010,37 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct journal_head *jh,
>> * ie. locked but not dirty) or tune2fs (which may actually have
>> * the buffer dirtied, ugh.) */
>>
>> - if (buffer_dirty(bh)) {
>> + if (buffer_dirty(bh) && jh->b_transaction) {
>> /*
>> * First question: is this buffer already part of the current
>> * transaction or the existing committing transaction?
>> */
>> - if (jh->b_transaction) {
>> - J_ASSERT_JH(jh,
>> - jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
>> - jh->b_transaction ==
>> - journal->j_committing_transaction);
>> - if (jh->b_next_transaction)
>> - J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_next_transaction ==
>> - transaction);
>> - warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
>> - }
>> + J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
>> + jh->b_transaction == journal->j_committing_transaction);
>> + if (jh->b_next_transaction)
>> + J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_next_transaction == transaction);
>> + warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
>> /*
>> - * In any case we need to clean the dirty flag and we must
>> - * do it under the buffer lock to be sure we don't race
>> - * with running write-out.
>> + * We need to clean the dirty flag and we must do it under the
>> + * buffer lock to be sure we don't race with running write-out.
>> */
>> JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
>> clear_buffer_dirty(bh);
>> + /*
>> + * Setting jbddirty after clearing buffer dirty is necessary.
>> + * Function jbd2_journal_restart() could keep buffer on
>> + * BJ_Reserved list until the transaction committing, then the
>> + * buffer won't be dirtied by jbd2_journal_refile_buffer()
>> + * after committing, the buffer couldn't fall on disk even
>> + * last checkpoint finished, which may corrupt filesystem.
>> + */
>> set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
>> }
>
> So I think the sequence:
>
> if (buffer_dirty(bh)) {
> warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
> JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
> clear_buffer_dirty(bh);
> set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
> }
>
> can be moved into the branch
>
> if (jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
> jh->b_next_transaction == transaction) {
>
> below. That way you can drop the assertions as well because they happen
> later in do_get_write_access() again anyway.
1. If we move the squence:
if (buffer_dirty(bh)) {
warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
clear_buffer_dirty(bh);
set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
}
into the branch
if (jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
jh->b_next_transaction == transaction) {
, then we have a new situation(jh->b_transaction ==
journal->j_committing_transaction) to clear buffer dirty, so we need to
add an else-branch like(based on v2 patch):
--- a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
@@ -1092,6 +1092,10 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct
journal_head *jh,
spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
unlock_buffer(bh);
goto done;
+ } else if (test_clear_buffer_dirty(bh)) {
+ warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
+ JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
+ set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
}
unlock_buffer(bh);
I think we'd better not to move the sequence?
2. I agree that the assertions in branch 'if (jh->b_transaction)' are
redundant, I will remove them in v3. Thanks for pointing that.
> Also I don't quite understand the new comment you have added. Do you mean
> we need to not only clear BH_Dirty bit but also set BH_JBDdirty as dirtying
> (through jbd2_journal_dirty_metadata()) does not have to follow after
> do_get_write_access()?
>
Yes.
I think one reason we have non-empty commit_transaction->t_reserved_list
is that: jbd2_journal_restart() could let jh attach to transaction_1 and
dirty jh in transaction_2.
buffer is dirty after trans_0 committed
do_get_write_access() => jh->trans = old_handle->trans_1, clear buffer
dirty & set jbddirty, BJ_Reserved
jbd2_journal_restart() => stop old_handle && may jbd2_log_start_commit
&& start new_handle with trans_2
jbd2_journal_commit_transaction() => clear jbddirty & set buffer dirty &
set jh->b_transaction = NULL
do_checkpoint => buffer is fell on disk. If do_get_write_access() not
mark jbddirty, buffer won't be fell on disk after checkpoint, which
could corrupt filesystem.
I'm not sure whether we have the above path in realworld. I guess it
exists in theory according to the comments:
/*
* First thing we are allowed to do is to discard any remaining
* BJ_Reserved buffers. Note, it is _not_ permissible to assume
* that there are no such buffers: if a large filesystem
* operation like a truncate needs to split itself over multiple
* transactions, then it may try to do a jbd2_journal_restart()
while
* there are still BJ_Reserved buffers outstanding. These must
* be released cleanly from the current transaction.
*
* In this case, the filesystem must still reserve write access
* again before modifying the buffer in the new transaction,
but
* we do not require it to remember exactly which old buffers
it
* has reserved. This is consistent with the existing
behaviour
* that multiple jbd2_journal_get_write_access() calls to the
same
* buffer are perfectly permissible.
* We use journal->j_state_lock here to serialize processing of
* t_reserved_list with eviction of buffers from
journal_unmap_buffer().
*/
while (commit_transaction->t_reserved_list) { [...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists