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]
Date:   Fri, 24 Feb 2023 01:25:02 +0530
From:   Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@...il.com>
To:     Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>
Cc:     Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix RENAME_WHITEOUT handling for inline directories

Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com> writes:

> * Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>:
>> Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com> writes:
>>
>> > A significant number of xfstests can cause ext4 to log one or more
>> > warning messages when they are run on a test file system where the
>> > inline_data feature has been enabled.  An example:
>> >
>> > "EXT4-fs warning (device vdc): ext4_dirblock_csum_set:425: inode
>> >  #16385: comm fsstress: No space for directory leaf checksum. Please
>> > run e2fsck -D."
>> >
>> > The xfstests include: ext4/057, 058, and 307; generic/013, 051, 068,
>> > 070, 076, 078, 083, 232, 269, 270, 390, 461, 475, 476, 482, 579, 585,
>> > 589, 626, 631, and 650.
>>
>> So, I guess since these were only ext4 warnings hence maybe these were
>> getting ignored? Because the tests were never failing?
>> Should we do something for such cases? Maybe adding this warning
>> detection in xfstests to fail the test case when these warnings are not
>> intended? e.g. such warnings should make the test fail by saying
>> something detected in dmesg. Except when these are expected for I/O error
>> injection tests, etc...
>>
>
> Hi, Ritesh:
>
> Thanks for taking a look at this patch.
>
> Right, the tests never failed.  I was aware of the warning messages because
> I routinely check the captured system log output from my upstream regression
> runs.  The messages weren't so much ignored as being set aside for the time
> being.  They have been appearing for some years, and I'd mentioned them in
> past concalls. Since the warning messages simply suggest a recovery action
> that's appropriate in some cases - running "e2fsck -D" - there wasn't much
> interest in pursuing them, given there was no evidence of actual file system
> damage or misbehavior.   After becoming much more familiar with the inline_data
> code myself recently I got suspicious and took a closer look.
>
> I don't know that I've got a strong opinion about this, but I think that adding
> the EXT4-fs warning and error message prefixes to the set of strings searched
> for by _check_dmesg, say, to force a test failure might be more trouble than
> it's worth (at least, in comparison with periodically grepping through the
> logs).  Adding ext4-specific filters to individual xfstests as needed,
> including maintaining them over time and extending the coverage to new tests as
> they appear, sounds like a lot of ongoing work for what might be a modest

ok, sure. But let me keep an eye out for this... Let me watch out for any
such bugs in my internal tests run to see whether adding such a check can
help us catch any hidden problems. I was thinking this need not be done
in one shot but can be done incrementally/individually for many tests.
Hence it should be relatively easy if we do that on the need basis
maybe.
I am not sure though of the returns/benefits from this work at this point in
time, until I have reviewed the list of failures.

> return.  IIRC, we haven't had a significant number of bugs associated with
> EXT4-fs messages without test failures in the last several years, at least.

ok. Let me also take a look at it. Thanks!

>
>> >
>> > In this situation, the warning message indicates a bug in the code that
>> > performs the RENAME_WHITEOUT operation on a directory entry that has
>> > been stored inline.  It doesn't detect that the directory is stored
>> > inline, and incorrectly attempts to compute a dirent block checksum on
>> > the whiteout inode when creating it.  This attempt fails as a result
>> > of the integrity checking in get_dirent_tail (usually due to a failure
>> > to match the EXT4_FT_DIR_CSUM magic cookie), and the warning message
>> > is then emitted.
>> >
>> > Fix this by simply collecting the inlined data state at the time the
>> > search for the source directory entry is performed.  Existing code
>> > handles the rest, and this is sufficient to eliminate all spurious
>> > warning messages produced by the tests above.  Go one step further
>> > and do the same in the code that resets the source directory entry in
>> > the event of failure.  The inlined state should be present in the
>> > "old" struct, but given the possibility of a race there's no harm
>> > in taking a conservative approach and getting that information again
>> > since the directory entry is being reread anyway.
>>
>> Thanks for the detailed explaination. This makes sense to me.
>>
>> >
>> > Fixes: b7ff91fd030d ("ext4: find old entry again if failed to rename whiteout")
>>
>> So for your changes in ext4_resetent(), your above fixes tags make sense.
>> But what about the changes in ext4_rename() function. That was always
>> passing NULL as the last argument since the begining no?
>> Thinking from the backport perspective if and when required ;)
>>
>
> I'm guessing the intersection of the set of inline data and whiteout (overlayfs)
> users is sufficiently small that this patch won't need backporting anytime
> soon.  :-)
>
> The reason I picked that tag is that it's a fix for a fix to the patch that
> originally added whiteout support to ext4. I wanted to convey that those
> fixes should be applied in addition to this patch to get fully functional code.

Sure. Thanks for the explaination.

-ritesh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists