linux-ext4 - Re: [RFCv2 2/5] ext4: Remove PAGE_SIZE assumption of folio from mpage_submit

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: <87wn08pp7y.fsf@doe.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jun 2023 22:55:37 +0530
From:   Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@...il.com>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Disha Goel <disgoel@...ux.ibm.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 2/5] ext4: Remove PAGE_SIZE assumption of folio from mpage_submit_folio

Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@...il.com> writes:

> Please ignore the previous email.
>
> "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> writes:
>
>> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 04:10:41PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote:
>>> mpage_submit_folio() was converted to take folio. Even though
>>> folio_size() in ext4 as of now is PAGE_SIZE, but it's better to
>>> remove that assumption which I am assuming is a missed left over from
>>> patch[1].
>>>
>>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/20230324180129.1220691-7-willy@infradead.org/
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@...il.com>
>>
>> I didn't notice this right away, because the failure is not 100%
>> reliable, but this commit will sometimes cause "kvm-xfstests -c
>> ext4/encrypt generic/068" to crash.  Reverting the patch fixes the
>> problem, so I plan to drop this patch from my tree.
>>
>
> Sorry about the crash. I am now able to reproduce the problem on my
> setup as well. I will debug this and will update once I have some more info.
>
> From the initial look, it looks like the problem might be occurring when
> folio_pos(folio) itself is > i_size_read(inode).
>
> If that is indeed the case, then I think even doing this with folio
> conversion (below code after folio conversion) looks incorrect for case
> when size is not PAGE_SIZE aligned.
>
> However, I will spend some more time debugging this.

I am still looking into this. I would like to make sure I go through
all the paths where i_size can be modified.
- buffered-IO
- writeback
- direct-IO
- page fault
- truncate
- fallocate (punch/collapse)
- evict (not relevant though)

It is easily recreatable if we have one thread doing buffered-io +
sync and other thread trying to truncate down inode->i_size.
Kernel panic maybe is happening only with -O encrypt mkfs option +
-o test_dummy_encryption mount option, but the size - folio_pos(folio)
is definitely wrong because inode->i_size is not protected in writeback path.

More on this later...

-ritesh