linux-kernel - Re: 3.0-rcX BUG at fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:432

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: <1307731313-sup-4497@shiny>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:54:59 -0400
From:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To:	Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>
Cc:	Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>, Jim Schutt <jaschut@...dia.gov>,
	dave <dave@...os.cz>, miaox <miaox@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	ceph-devel <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 3.0-rcX BUG at fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:432 - bisected

Excerpts from Josef Bacik's message of 2011-06-10 14:34:21 -0400:
> On 06/10/2011 02:35 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> On 06/10/2011 02:14 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Sage Weil wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Chris Mason wrote:
> >>>>> Excerpts from Jim Schutt's message of 2011-06-10 13:06:22 -0400:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [ two different btrfs crashes ]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think your two crashes in btrfs were from the uninit variables and
> >>>>> those should be fixed in rc2.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> When I did my bisection, my criteria for success/failure was
> >>>>>> "did mkcephfs succeed?".  When I apply this criteria to a recent
> >>>>>> linus kernel (e.g. 06e86849cf4019), which includes the fix you
> >>>>>> mentioned (aa0467d8d2a00e), I get still a different failure mode,
> >>>>>> which doesn't actually reference btrfs:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [  276.364178] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000000000000000a
> >>>>>> [  276.365127] IP: [<ffffffffa05434b1>] journal_start+0x3e/0x9c [jbd]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looking at the resulting code in the oops, we're here in journal_start:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>         if (handle) {
> >>>>>                 J_ASSERT(handle->h_transaction->t_journal == journal);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> handle comes from current->journal_info, and we're doing a deref on
> >>>>> handle->h_transaction, which is probably 0xa.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, we're leaving crud in current->journal_info and ext3 is finding it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps its from ceph starting a transaction but leaving it running?
> >>>>> The bug came with Josef's transaction performance fixes, but it is
> >>>>> probably a mixture of his code with the ioctls ceph is using.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ah, yeah, that's the problem.  We saw a similar problem a while back with 
> >>>> the start/stop transaction ioctls.  In this case, create_snapshot is doing
> >>>>
> >>>>     trans = btrfs_start_transaction(root->fs_info->extent_root, 5);
> >>>>     if (IS_ERR(trans)) {
> >>>>         ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
> >>>>         goto fail;
> >>>>     }
> >>>>
> >>>> which sets current->journal_info.  Then
> >>>>
> >>>>     ret = btrfs_snap_reserve_metadata(trans, pending_snapshot);
> >>>>     BUG_ON(ret);
> >>>>
> >>>>     list_add(&pending_snapshot->list,
> >>>>          &trans->transaction->pending_snapshots);
> >>>>     if (async_transid) {
> >>>>         *async_transid = trans->transid;
> >>>>         ret = btrfs_commit_transaction_async(trans,
> >>>>                      root->fs_info->extent_root, 1);
> >>>>     } else {
> >>>>         ret = btrfs_commit_transaction(trans,
> >>>>                        root->fs_info->extent_root);
> >>>>     }
> >>>>
> >>>> but the async snap creation ioctl takes the async path, which runs 
> >>>> btrfs_commit_transaction in a worker thread.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not sure what the right thing to do is here is... can whatever is in 
> >>>> journal_info be attached to trans instead in 
> >>>> btrfs_commit_transaction_async()?
> >>>
> >>> It looks like it's not used for anything in btrfs, actually; it's just set 
> >>> and cleared.  What's the point of that?
> >>>
> >>
> >> It is used now, check the beginning of start_transaction().  Thanks,
> > 
> > Oh I see, okay.
> > 
> > So clearing it in btrfs_commit_transaction_async should be fine then, 
> > right?  When btrfs_commit_transaction runs in the other thread it won't 
> > care that current->journal_info is NULL.
> > 
> 
> Oh yeah your patch is good :),

Thanks everyone (especially Jim).

-chris
--
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/