Message-ID: <70b274c2-c19a-103b-4cf4-b106c698ddcc@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 20:50:30 +0800
From: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, <tytso@....edu>,
	<adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, <willy@...radead.org>,
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <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 -RFC 0/2] mm/ext4: avoid data corruption when extending
 DIO write race with buffered read

On 2023/12/4 22:41, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 04-12-23 21:50:18, Baokun Li wrote:
>> On 2023/12/4 20:11, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> On Sat 02-12-23 17:14:30, Baokun Li wrote:
>>>> Recently, while running some pressure tests on MYSQL, noticed that
>>>> occasionally a "corrupted data in log event" error would be reported.
>>>> After analyzing the error, I found that extending DIO write and buffered
>>>> read were competing, resulting in some zero-filled page end being read.
>>>> Since ext4 buffered read doesn't hold an inode lock, and there is no
>>>> field in the page to indicate the valid data size, it seems to me that
>>>> it is impossible to solve this problem perfectly without changing these
>>>> two things.
>>> Yes, combining buffered reads with direct IO writes is a recipe for
>>> problems and pretty much in the "don't do it" territory. So honestly I'd
>>> consider this a MYSQL bug. Were you able to identify why does MYSQL use
>>> buffered read in this case? It is just something specific to the test
>>> you're doing?
>> The problem is with a one-master-twoslave MYSQL database with three
>> physical machines, and using sysbench pressure testing on each of the
>> three machines, the problem occurs about once every two to three hours.
>>
>> The problem is with the relay log file, and when the problem occurs, the
>> middle dozens of bytes of the file are read as all zeros, while the data on
>> disk is not. This is a journal-like file where a write process gets the data
>> from
>> the master node and writes it locally, and another replay process reads the
>> file and performs the replay operation accordingly (some SQL statements).
>> The problem is that when replaying, it finds that the data read is
>> corrupted,
>> not valid SQL data, while the data on disk is normal.
>>
>> It's not confirmed that buffered reads vs direct IO writes is actually
>> causing this issue, but this is the only scenario that we can reproduce
>> with our local simplified scripts. Also, after merging in patch 1, the
>> MYSQL pressure test scenario has now been tested for 5 days and has not
>> been reproduced.
>>
>> I'll double-check the problem scenario, although buffered reads with
>> buffered writes doesn't seem to have this problem.
> Yeah, from what you write it seems that the replay code is using buffered
> reads on the journal file. I guess you could confirm that with a bit of
> kernel tracing but the symptoms look pretty convincing. Did you try talking
> to MYSQL guys about why they are doing this?
The operations performed on the relay log file are buffered reads and 
writes,
which I confirmed with the following bpftrace script:
```
#include <linux/fs.h>
#include <linux/path.h>
#include <linux/dcache.h>

kprobe:generic_file_buffered_read /!strncmp(str(((struct kiocb 
*)arg0)->ki_filp->f_path.dentry->d_name.name), "relay", 5)/ {
     printf("read path: %s\n", str(((struct kiocb 
*)arg0)->ki_filp->f_path.dentry->d_name.name));
}

kprobe:ext4_buffered_write_iter /!strncmp(str(((struct kiocb 
*)arg0)->ki_filp->f_path.dentry->d_name.name), "relay", 5)/ {
     printf("write path: %s\n", str(((struct kiocb 
*)arg0)->ki_filp->f_path.dentry->d_name.name));
}
```
I suspect there are DIO writes causing the problem, but I haven't caught
any DIO writes to such files via bpftrace.
>>>> In this series, the first patch reads the inode size twice, and takes the
>>>> smaller of the two values as the copyout limit to avoid copying data that
>>>> was not actually read (0-padding) into the user buffer and causing data
>>>> corruption. This greatly reduces the probability of problems under 4k
>>>> page. However, the problem is still easily triggered under 64k page.
>>>>
>>>> The second patch waits for the existing dio write to complete and
>>>> invalidate the stale page cache before performing a new buffered read
>>>> in ext4, avoiding data corruption by copying the stale page cache to
>>>> the user buffer. This makes it much less likely that the problem will
>>>> be triggered in a 64k page.
>>>>
>>>> Do we have a plan to add a lock to the ext4 buffered read or a field in
>>>> the page that indicates the size of the valid data in the page? Or does
>>>> anyone have a better idea?
>>> No, there are no plans to address this AFAIK. Because such locking will
>>> slow down all the well behaved applications to fix a corner case for
>>> application doing unsupported things. Sure we must not crash the kernel,
>>> corrupt the filesystem or leak sensitive (e.g. uninitialized) data if app
>>> combines buffered and direct IO but returning zeros instead of valid data
>>> is in my opinion fully within the range of acceptable behavior for such
>>> case.
>>>
>> I also feel that a scenario like buffered reads + DIO writes is strange.
>> But theoretically when read doesn't return an error, the data read
>> shouldn't be wrong.  And I tested that xfs guarantees data consistency in
>> this scenario, which is why I thought it might be buggy.
> Yes, XFS has inherited stronger consistency guarantees from IRIX times than
> Linux filesystems traditionally had. We generally don't even guarantee
> buffered read vs buffered write atomicity (i.e., buffered read can see a
> torn buffered write).
>
> 								Honza
I'm a bit confused here, buffered read vs buffered write uses the same 
page and
appears to be protected by a memory barrier, how does the inconsistency 
occur?


Thanks!
-- 
With Best Regards,
Baokun Li
.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists