linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add inode checksum support to ext4

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4E3652CE.1060000@coly.li>
Date:	Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:16:30 +0800
From:	Coly Li <i@...y.li>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <aedilger@...il.com>,
	Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add inode checksum support to ext4

On 2011年08月01日 13:04, Joel Becker Wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 09:57:11PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:52:41AM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
>>> On 2011年07月31日 15:08, Joel Becker Wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 03:25:32PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
>>>>> And in non-journal mode, there is not copy of any meta data block in jbd2, we need to be
>>>>> more careful in check summing, e.g. inode/block bitmap blocks...
>>>>
>>>> 	Sure, but you could use a trigger in journaled mode and then do
>>>> the checksums directly in the __ext4_handle_journal_dirty_*() functions
>>>> in non-journaled mode.  Sure, it would be a little more CPU time, but
>>>> the user picked "checksums + no journal" at mkfs time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, my idea was similar to you.
>>> One thing not clear to me is, in non-journal mode, how to make the page of bitmap block being stable. Because bits
>>> setting in Ext4 bitmap is non-locking, it might be possible that new bit setting after check sum is calculated.
>>
>> 	Every place that changes the bits will eventually call
>> ext4_journal_dirty(), which recalculates the checksum.  So there's no
>> danger of a set-bit-after-last-checksum.  But you will have to lock
>> around the checksum calculation in non-journaling mode.  JBD2 handles it
>> for journaling mode.
> 
> 	Wait, bitsetting in ext4 can't be non-locking.  Or are they
> crazily stomping on memory?  I sure see an assert_spin_locked() in
> mb_mark_used().
> 

Yes, you are right.
What I worried was inode bitmap, because last time (before uninit_bg was developed), inode bitmap was set by
ext4_set_bit_atomic(). Now I see inode bitmap is set by ext4_claim_inode() which locks the group internally.
And I confirm block bitmap is protected by ext4_{lock,unlock}_group(). So there is no risk for
set-bit-after-last-checksum.

Thanks for the clarification.

-- 
Coly Li
--
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/