linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling

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: <20061220142631.GZ44411608@melbourne.sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Dec 2006 01:26:31 +1100
From:	David Chinner <dgc@....com>
To:	Dmitriy Monakhov <dmonakhov@...ru>
Cc:	David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
	Dmitriy Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling

On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:07:12AM +0300, Dmitriy Monakhov wrote:
> David Chinner <dgc@....com> writes:
> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 04:22:44PM +0300, Dmitriy Monakhov wrote:
> >> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
> >> index 8332c77..7c571dd 100644
> >> --- a/mm/filemap.c
> >> +++ b/mm/filemap.c

<snip stuff>

> > You comment in the first hunk that i_mutex may not be held here,
> > but there's no comment in __generic_file_aio_write_nolock() that the
> > i_mutex must be held for !S_ISBLK devices.
> Any one may call directly call generic_file_direct_write() with i_mutex not held. 

Only block devices based on the implementation (i.e. buffered I/O is
done here).  but one can't call vmtruncate without the i_mutex held,
so if a filesystem is calling generic_file_direct_write() it won't
be able to use __generic_file_aio_write_nolock() without the i_mutex
held (because it can right now if it doesn't need the buffered I/O
fallback path), then 

> >
> >> @@ -2341,6 +2353,13 @@ ssize_t generic_file_aio_write_nolock(st
> >>  	ssize_t ret;
> >>  
> >>  	BUG_ON(iocb->ki_pos != pos);
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 *  generic_file_buffered_write() may be called inside 
> >> +	 *  __generic_file_aio_write_nolock() even in case of
> >> +	 *  O_DIRECT for non S_ISBLK files. So i_mutex must be held.
> >> +	 */
> >> +	if (!S_ISBLK(inode->i_mode))
> >> +		BUG_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&inode->i_mutex));
> >>  
> >>  	ret = __generic_file_aio_write_nolock(iocb, iov, nr_segs,
> >>  			&iocb->ki_pos);
> >
> > I note that you comment here in generic_file_aio_write_nolock(),
> > but it's not immediately obvious that this is refering to the
> > vmtruncate() call in __generic_file_aio_write_nolock().
> This is not about vmtruncate(). __generic_file_aio_write_nolock() may 
> call generic_file_buffered_write() even in case of O_DIRECT for !S_ISBLK, and 

No, the need for i_mutex is currently dependent on doing direct I/O
and the return value from generic_file_buffered_write().
A filesystem that doesn't fall back to buffered I/O (e.g. XFS) can currently
use generic_file_aio_write_nolock() without needing to hold i_mutex.

Your change prevents that by introducing a vmtruncate() before the
generic_file_buffered_write() return value check, which means that a
filesystem now _must_ hold the i_mutex when calling
generic_file_aio_write_nolock() even when it doesn't do buffered I/O
through this path.

> generic_file_buffered_write() has documented locking rules (i_mutex held).
> IMHO it is important to explicitly document this . And after we realize
> that i_mutex always held, vmtruncate() may be safely called.

I don't think changing the locking semantics of
generic_file_aio_write_nolock() to require a lock for all
filesystem-based users is a good way to fix a filesystem specific
direct I/O problem which can be easily fixed in filesystem specific
code - i.e. call vmtruncate() in ext3_file_write() on failure....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/