linux-kernel - [PATCH 05/20] drbd: don't implicitly resize Diskless node beyond end of device

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: <1404231410-29852-6-git-send-email-philipp.reisner@linbit.com>
Date:	Tue,  1 Jul 2014 18:16:35 +0200
From:	Philipp Reisner <philipp.reisner@...bit.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:	drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com
Subject: [PATCH 05/20] drbd: don't implicitly resize Diskless node beyond end of device

From: Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@...bit.com>

During handshake, we compare backend sizes, and user set limits,
and agree on what device size we are going to expose.

We remember that last-agreed-size in our meta data.

But if we come up diskless, we have to accept what the peer
presents us with. We used to accept the peers maximum potential
capacity (backend size), which is wrong, and could lead to IO errors
due to access beyond end of device.

Instead, we need to accept the peer's current size.
Unless that is communicated as 0, in which case we
accept the backend size, or the user set limit, if set.

Signed-off-by: Philipp Reisner <philipp.reisner@...bit.com>
Signed-off-by: Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@...bit.com>
---
 drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c
index 2fcc3af..5626c5b 100644
--- a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c
+++ b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c
@@ -3657,7 +3657,7 @@ static int receive_sizes(struct drbd_connection *connection, struct packet_info
 	struct drbd_device *device;
 	struct p_sizes *p = pi->data;
 	enum determine_dev_size dd = DS_UNCHANGED;
-	sector_t p_size, p_usize, my_usize;
+	sector_t p_size, p_usize, p_csize, my_usize;
 	int ldsc = 0; /* local disk size changed */
 	enum dds_flags ddsf;
 
@@ -3668,6 +3668,7 @@ static int receive_sizes(struct drbd_connection *connection, struct packet_info
 
 	p_size = be64_to_cpu(p->d_size);
 	p_usize = be64_to_cpu(p->u_size);
+	p_csize = be64_to_cpu(p->c_size);
 
 	/* just store the peer's disk size for now.
 	 * we still need to figure out whether we accept that. */
@@ -3742,9 +3743,21 @@ static int receive_sizes(struct drbd_connection *connection, struct packet_info
 			return -EIO;
 		drbd_md_sync(device);
 	} else {
-		/* I am diskless, need to accept the peer's size. */
+		/*
+		 * I am diskless, need to accept the peer's *current* size.
+		 * I must NOT accept the peers backing disk size,
+		 * it may have been larger than mine all along...
+		 *
+		 * At this point, the peer knows more about my disk, or at
+		 * least about what we last agreed upon, than myself.
+		 * So if his c_size is less than his d_size, the most likely
+		 * reason is that *my* d_size was smaller last time we checked.
+		 *
+		 * However, if he sends a zero current size,
+		 * take his (user-capped or) backing disk size anyways.
+		 */
 		drbd_reconsider_max_bio_size(device, NULL);
-		drbd_set_my_capacity(device, p_size);
+		drbd_set_my_capacity(device, p_csize ?: p_usize ?: p_size);
 	}
 
 	if (get_ldev(device)) {
-- 
1.9.1

--
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/