linux-kernel - Re: [REGRESSION] 998ef75ddb and aio-dio-invalidate-failure w/ data=journal

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: <20151007033448.GB24678@thunk.org>
Date:	Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:34:48 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] 998ef75ddb and aio-dio-invalidate-failure w/
 data=journal

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 11:04:35AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> The warning comes out of ext4_walk_page_buffers() and the dirty state
> comes from page_zero_new_buffers(). That seems a _bit_ goofy that the
> filesystem is marking the page dirty and then so shortly warning about it.

Yes, this is a bug in ext4 --- and in fact in ext3, which apparently
we've lived with for *years*.  The problem is that when we are
journalling data buffers, we can't use page_zero_new_buffers(),
because instead of calling mark_buffer_dirty(bh), we need to call
ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(bh).  This will call mark_buffer_dirty(bh)
if journalling is not enabled, or if journalling is enabled, it will
call jbd2_journal_dirty_metadata(handle,bh).

Apprently it is extremely rare that (copied < len) --- especially when
mm/filemap.c was doing a prefault.  :-)

So your patch looks good, but in addition to that, if copied is > 0
and less than len, we shouldn't be calling page_zero_new_buffers().
We're going to need our own version of it that doesn't call
mark_buffer_dirty().

So if Linus wants to revert 998ef75ddb patch, we can do that, but I'm
also happy applying your patch as a way of preventing the failure.
We'll need to do more work to make ext4_journalled_write_end(), but
that's a bigger change which I'd rather not do at this point in the
development cycle.

Thanks again for taking a closer look at things.  I'm currently
running a full soak test to make sure your patch to
ext4_journalled_write_end() doesn't introduce any other problems, but
I'm quite confident it should be fine.

Cheers,

						- Ted
--
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/