linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] ext4: correct the journal credits calculations of allocating blocks

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2e127ed8-20a2-4610-8fd8-e2095bde0577@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 10:48:28 +0800
From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...weicloud.com>
To: tytso@....edu, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 willy@...radead.org, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, jack@...e.cz,
 yi.zhang@...wei.com, libaokun1@...wei.com, yukuai3@...wei.com,
 yangerkun@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] ext4: correct the journal credits calculations of
 allocating blocks

Hi Ted.

On 2025/5/12 14:33, Zhang Yi wrote:
> From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
> 
> The journal credits calculation in ext4_ext_index_trans_blocks() is
> currently inadequate. It only multiplies the depth of the extents tree
> and doesn't account for the blocks that may be required for adding the
> leaf extents themselves.
> 
> After enabling large folios, we can easily run out of handle credits,
> triggering a warning in jbd2_journal_dirty_metadata() on filesystems
> with a 1KB block size. This occurs because we may need more extents when
> iterating through each large folio in
> ext4_do_writepages()->mpage_map_and_submit_extent(). Therefore, we
> should modify ext4_ext_index_trans_blocks() to include a count of the
> leaf extents in the worst case as well.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
> ---
>  fs/ext4/extents.c |  5 +++--
>  fs/ext4/inode.c   | 10 ++++------
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> index c616a16a9f36..e759941bd262 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> @@ -2405,9 +2405,10 @@ int ext4_ext_index_trans_blocks(struct inode *inode, int extents)
>  	depth = ext_depth(inode);
>  
>  	if (extents <= 1)
> -		index = depth * 2;
> +		index = depth * 2 + extents;
>  	else
> -		index = depth * 3;
> +		index = depth * 3 +
> +			DIV_ROUND_UP(extents, ext4_ext_space_block(inode, 0));
>  
>  	return index;
>  }

This patch conflicts with Jan's patch e18d4f11d240 ("ext4: fix
calculation of credits for extent tree modification") in
ext4_ext_index_trans_blocks(), the conflict should be resolved when
merging this patch. However, I checked the merged commit of this patch
in your dev branch[1], and the changes in ext4_ext_index_trans_blocks()
seem to be incorrect, which could result in insufficient credit
reservations on 1K block size filesystems.

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git/commit/?h=dev&id=d80af138eb8873eb13f5fece1adabb3ca4325134

I think the correct conflict resolution in ext4_ext_index_trans_blocks()
should be:

diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index 9053fe68ee4c..431d66181721 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
@@ -2409,9 +2409,10 @@ int ext4_ext_index_trans_blocks(struct inode *inode, int extents)
         * the time we actually modify the tree. Assume the worst case.
         */
        if (extents <= 1)
-               index = EXT4_MAX_EXTENT_DEPTH * 2;
+               index = EXT4_MAX_EXTENT_DEPTH * 2 + extents;
        else
-               index = EXT4_MAX_EXTENT_DEPTH * 3;
+               index = EXT4_MAX_EXTENT_DEPTH * 3 +
+                       DIV_ROUND_UP(extents, ext4_ext_space_block(inode, 0));

        return index;

Best Regards,
Yi.


> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> index ffbf444b56d4..3e962a760d71 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> @@ -5792,18 +5792,16 @@ static int ext4_meta_trans_blocks(struct inode *inode, int lblocks,
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * How many index blocks need to touch to map @lblocks logical blocks
> -	 * to @pextents physical extents?
> +	 * How many index and lead blocks need to touch to map @lblocks
> +	 * logical blocks to @pextents physical extents?
>  	 */
>  	idxblocks = ext4_index_trans_blocks(inode, lblocks, pextents);
>  
> -	ret = idxblocks;
> -
>  	/*
>  	 * Now let's see how many group bitmaps and group descriptors need
>  	 * to account
>  	 */
> -	groups = idxblocks + pextents;
> +	groups = idxblocks;
>  	gdpblocks = groups;
>  	if (groups > ngroups)
>  		groups = ngroups;
> @@ -5811,7 +5809,7 @@ static int ext4_meta_trans_blocks(struct inode *inode, int lblocks,
>  		gdpblocks = EXT4_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_gdb_count;
>  
>  	/* bitmaps and block group descriptor blocks */
> -	ret += groups + gdpblocks;
> +	ret = idxblocks + groups + gdpblocks;
>  
>  	/* Blocks for super block, inode, quota and xattr blocks */
>  	ret += EXT4_META_TRANS_BLOCKS(inode->i_sb);