linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: don't order data when zeroing unwritten or delayed block

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: <iih22kuucq6s2pdkhdcdosaaclfapmpanuikbvvzw4zf45pqw2@23kqz7drc6pr>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 11:48:12 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...weicloud.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, jack@...e.cz, 
	ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com, ritesh.list@...il.com, yi.zhang@...wei.com, yizhang089@...il.com, 
	libaokun1@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com, yukuai@...as.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: don't order data when zeroing unwritten or delayed
 block

On Mon 22-12-25 09:31:36, Zhang Yi wrote:
> From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
> 
> When zeroing out a written partial block, it is necessary to order the
> data to prevent exposing stale data on disk. However, if the buffer is
> unwritten or delayed, it is not allocated as written, so ordering the
> data is not required. This can prevent strange and unnecessary ordered
> writes when appending data across a region within a block.
> 
> Assume we have a 2K unwritten file on a filesystem with 4K blocksize,
> and buffered write from 3K to 4K. Before this patch,
> __ext4_block_zero_page_range() would add the range [2k,3k) to the
> ordered range, and then the JBD2 commit process would write back this
> block. However, it does nothing since the block is not mapped, this
							^^^ by this you
mean that the block is unwritten, don't you?

> folio will be redirtied and written back agian through the normal write
> back process.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>

The patch looks good. Feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>

								Honza

> ---
>  fs/ext4/inode.c | 8 ++++++--
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> index fa579e857baf..fc16a89903b9 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> @@ -4104,9 +4104,13 @@ static int __ext4_block_zero_page_range(handle_t *handle,
>  	if (ext4_should_journal_data(inode)) {
>  		err = ext4_dirty_journalled_data(handle, bh);
>  	} else {
> -		err = 0;
>  		mark_buffer_dirty(bh);
> -		if (ext4_should_order_data(inode))
> +		/*
> +		 * Only the written block requires ordered data to prevent
> +		 * exposing stale data.
> +		 */
> +		if (!buffer_unwritten(bh) && !buffer_delay(bh) &&
> +		    ext4_should_order_data(inode))
>  			err = ext4_jbd2_inode_add_write(handle, inode, from,
>  					length);
>  	}
> -- 
> 2.52.0
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR