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  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]
Date:	Sat, 28 Dec 2013 11:51:13 +0800
From:	Li Wang <liwang@...ntukylin.com>
To:	Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com>
CC:	ceph-devel <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sage Weil <sage@...tank.com>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Yunchuan Wen <yunchuanwen@...ntukylin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Ceph fscache: Fix kernel panic due to a race

Hi Milosz,
   As far as I know, logically, currently fscache does not play
as write cache for Ceph, except that there is a
call to ceph_readpage_to_fscache() in ceph_writepage(), but that
is nothing related to our test case. According to our observation,
our test case never goes through ceph_writepage(), instead, it goes
through ceph_writepages(). So in other words, I donot think this
is related to caching in write path.
   May I try to explain the panic in more detail,

(1) dd if=/dev/zero of=cephfs/foo bs=8 count=512
(2) echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
(3) dd if=cephfs/foo of=/dev/null bs=8 count=1024

For statement (1), it is frequently appending a file, so
ceph_aio_write() frequently updates the inode->i_size,
however, these updates did not immediately reflected to
object->store_limit_l. For statement (3), when we
start reading the second page at [4096, 8192), ceph find that the page
does not be cached in fscache, then it decides to write this page into
fscache, during this process in cachefiles_write_page(), it found that 
object->store_limit_l < 4096 (page->index << 12), it causes panic. Does
it make sense?

Cheers,
Li Wang

On 2013/12/27 6:51, Milosz Tanski wrote:
> Li,
>
> I looked at the patchset am I correct that this only happens when we
> enable caching in the write path?
>
> - Milosz
>
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Li Wang <liwang@...ntukylin.com> wrote:
>> From: Yunchuan Wen <yunchuanwen@...ntukylin.com>
>>
>> The following scripts could easily panic the kernel,
>>
>> #!/bin/bash
>> mount -t ceph -o fsc MONADDR:/ cephfs
>> rm -rf cephfs/foo
>> dd if=/dev/zero of=cephfs/foo bs=8 count=512
>> echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
>> dd if=cephfs/foo of=/dev/null bs=8 count=1024
>>
>> This is due to when writing a page into fscache, the code will
>> assert that the write position does not exceed the
>> object->store_limit_l, which is supposed to be equal to inode->i_size.
>> However, for current implementation, after file writing, the
>> object->store_limit_l is not synchronized with new
>> inode->i_size immediately, which introduces a race that if writing
>> a new page into fscache, will reach the ASSERT that write position
>> has exceeded the object->store_limit_l, and cause kernel panic.
>> This patch fixes it.
>>
>> Yunchuan Wen (3):
>>    Ceph fscache: Add an interface to synchronize object store limit
>>    Ceph fscache: Update object store limit after writing
>>    Ceph fscache: Wait for completion of object initialization
>>
>>   fs/ceph/cache.c |    1 +
>>   fs/ceph/cache.h |   10 ++++++++++
>>   fs/ceph/file.c  |    3 +++
>>   3 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>
>> --
>> 1.7.9.5
>>
>
>
>
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists