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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2023 22:10:50 +0800
From:   Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC:     <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, <tytso@....edu>,
        <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, <ritesh.list@...il.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yi.zhang@...wei.com>,
        <yangerkun@...wei.com>, <yukuai3@...wei.com>,
        Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ext4: only update i_reserved_data_blocks on
 successful block allocation

On 2023/4/11 17:08, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 06-04-23 21:28:33, Baokun Li wrote:
>> In our fault injection test, we create an ext4 file, migrate it to
>> non-extent based file, then punch a hole and finally trigger a WARN_ON
>> in the ext4_da_update_reserve_space():
>>
>> EXT4-fs warning (device sda): ext4_da_update_reserve_space:369:
>> ino 14, used 11 with only 10 reserved data blocks
>>
>> When writing back a non-extent based file, if we enable delalloc, the
>> number of reserved blocks will be subtracted from the number of blocks
>> mapped by ext4_ind_map_blocks(), and the extent status tree will be
>> updated. We update the extent status tree by first removing the old
>> extent_status and then inserting the new extent_status. If the block range
>> we remove happens to be in an extent, then we need to allocate another
>> extent_status with ext4_es_alloc_extent().
>>
>>         use old    to remove   to add new
>>      |----------|------------|------------|
>>                old extent_status
>>
>> The problem is that the allocation of a new extent_status failed due to a
>> fault injection, and __es_shrink() did not get free memory, resulting in
>> a return of -ENOMEM. Then do_writepages() retries after receiving -ENOMEM,
>> we map to the same extent again, and the number of reserved blocks is again
>> subtracted from the number of blocks in that extent. Since the blocks in
>> the same extent are subtracted twice, we end up triggering WARN_ON at
>> ext4_da_update_reserve_space() because used > ei->i_reserved_data_blocks.
>>
>> For non-extent based file, we update the number of reserved blocks after
>> ext4_ind_map_blocks() is executed, which causes a problem that when we call
>> ext4_ind_map_blocks() to create a block, it doesn't always create a block,
>> but we always reduce the number of reserved blocks. So we move the logic
>> for updating reserved blocks to ext4_ind_map_blocks() to ensure that the
>> number of reserved blocks is updated only after we do succeed in allocating
>> some new blocks.
>>
>> Fixes: 5f634d064c70 ("ext4: Fix quota accounting error with fallocate")
>> Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
> Looks good, just one nit below.
>
>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/indirect.c b/fs/ext4/indirect.c
>> index c68bebe7ff4b..9acab70ddf5e 100644
>> --- a/fs/ext4/indirect.c
>> +++ b/fs/ext4/indirect.c
>> @@ -651,6 +651,14 @@ int ext4_ind_map_blocks(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
>>   
>>   	ext4_update_inode_fsync_trans(handle, inode, 1);
>>   	count = ar.len;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Update reserved blocks/metadata blocks after successful block
>> +	 * allocation which had been deferred till now.
>> +	 */
>> +	if ((count > 0) && (flags & EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_DELALLOC_RESERVE))
> You don't need the count > 0 condition here. It should be always true.
>
> 								Honza
>
Indeed!

Thanks a million!

I will remove this condition in patch v3.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Baokun Li
.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists