linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC PATCH V2 1/2] ext4: fix a potential assertion failure due to improperly dirtied buffer

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240809171039.nnl4bb5oe2azcggh@quack3>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 19:10:39 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: zhangshida <starzhangzsd@...il.com>
Cc: tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, jack@...e.com,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	zhangshida@...inos.cn, Baolin Liu <liubaolin@...inos.cn>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 1/2] ext4: fix a potential assertion failure due
 to improperly dirtied buffer

On Fri 09-08-24 14:46:05, zhangshida wrote:
> From: Shida Zhang <zhangshida@...inos.cn>
> 
> On an old kernel version(4.19, ext3, data=journal, pagesize=64k),
> an assertion failure will occasionally be triggered by the line below:
> -----------
> jbd2_journal_commit_transaction
> {
> ...
> J_ASSERT_BH(bh, !buffer_dirty(bh));
> /*
> * The buffer on BJ_Forget list and not jbddirty means
> ...
> }
> -----------
> 
> The same condition may also be applied to the lattest kernel version.

Maybe let me shorten the following part of the changelog a bit:

When blocksize < pagesize and we truncate a file, there can be buffers in
the mapping tail page beyond i_size. These buffers will be filed to
transaction's BJ_Forget list by ext4_journalled_invalidatepage() during
truncation. When the transaction doing truncate starts committing, we can
grow the file again. This calls __block_write_begin() which allocates new
blocks under these buffers in the tail page we go through the branch:

                        if (buffer_new(bh)) {
                                clean_bdev_bh_alias(bh);
                                if (folio_test_uptodate(folio)) {
                                        clear_buffer_new(bh);
                                        set_buffer_uptodate(bh);
                                        mark_buffer_dirty(bh);
                                        continue;
                                }
				...
			}

Hence buffers on BJ_Forget list of the committing transaction get marked
dirty and this triggers the jbd2 assertion.

Teach ext4_block_write_begin() to properly handle files with data
journalling by avoiding dirtying them directly. Instead of
folio_zero_new_buffers() we use ext4_journalled_zero_new_buffers() which
takes care of handling journalling. We also don't need to mark new uptodate
buffers as dirty in ext4_block_write_begin(). That will be either done
either by block_commit_write() in case of success or by
folio_zero_new_buffers() in case of failure.

> Reported-by: Baolin Liu <liubaolin@...inos.cn>
> Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Shida Zhang <zhangshida@...inos.cn>
> ---
>  fs/ext4/inode.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> index 941c1c0d5c6e..de46c0a6842a 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> @@ -49,6 +49,11 @@
>  
>  #include <trace/events/ext4.h>
>  
> +static void ext4_journalled_zero_new_buffers(handle_t *handle,
> +					    struct inode *inode,
> +					    struct folio *folio,
> +					    unsigned from, unsigned to);
> +
>  static __u32 ext4_inode_csum(struct inode *inode, struct ext4_inode *raw,
>  			      struct ext4_inode_info *ei)
>  {
> @@ -1042,7 +1047,8 @@ int do_journal_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
>  }
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION
> -static int ext4_block_write_begin(struct folio *folio, loff_t pos, unsigned len,
> +static int ext4_block_write_begin(handle_t *handle, struct folio *folio,
> +				  loff_t pos, unsigned len,
>  				  get_block_t *get_block)
>  {
>  	unsigned from = pos & (PAGE_SIZE - 1);
> @@ -1056,6 +1062,7 @@ static int ext4_block_write_begin(struct folio *folio, loff_t pos, unsigned len,
>  	struct buffer_head *bh, *head, *wait[2];
>  	int nr_wait = 0;
>  	int i;
> +	bool should_journal_data = ext4_should_journal_data(inode);
>  
>  	BUG_ON(!folio_test_locked(folio));
>  	BUG_ON(from > PAGE_SIZE);
> @@ -1084,11 +1091,16 @@ static int ext4_block_write_begin(struct folio *folio, loff_t pos, unsigned len,
>  			err = get_block(inode, block, bh, 1);
>  			if (err)
>  				break;
> +			if (should_journal_data)
> +				do_journal_get_write_access(handle, inode, bh);
>  			if (buffer_new(bh)) {
>  				if (folio_test_uptodate(folio)) {
>  					clear_buffer_new(bh);
>  					set_buffer_uptodate(bh);
> -					mark_buffer_dirty(bh);
> +					if (should_journal_data)
> +						ext4_dirty_journalled_data(handle, bh);
> +					else
> +						mark_buffer_dirty(bh);

This hunk is not needed. We can just do:

				if (folio_test_uptodate(folio)) {
-					clear_buffer_new(bh);
					set_buffer_uptodate(bh);
-					mark_buffer_dirty(bh);
					continue;
				}

>  					continue;
>  				}
>  				if (block_end > to || block_start < from)
> @@ -1118,7 +1130,11 @@ static int ext4_block_write_begin(struct folio *folio, loff_t pos, unsigned len,
>  			err = -EIO;
>  	}
>  	if (unlikely(err)) {
> -		folio_zero_new_buffers(folio, from, to);
> +		if (should_journal_data)
> +			ext4_journalled_zero_new_buffers(handle, inode, folio,
> +							 from, to);
> +		else
> +			folio_zero_new_buffers(folio, from, to);
>  	} else if (fscrypt_inode_uses_fs_layer_crypto(inode)) {
>  		for (i = 0; i < nr_wait; i++) {
>  			int err2;

This looks good.

								Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR