linux-kernel - Re: UBIFS and page migration (take 3)

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: <5739C0C1.1090907@nod.at>
Date:	Mon, 16 May 2016 14:44:49 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com,
	maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com, david@...ma-star.at,
	david@...morbit.com, dedekind1@...il.com, alex@...tthing.co,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, sasha.levin@...cle.com,
	iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, rvaswani@...eaurora.org,
	tony.luck@...el.com, shailendra.capricorn@...il.com,
	kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, hughd@...gle.com,
	mgorman@...hsingularity.net, vbabka@...e.cz
Subject: Re: UBIFS and page migration (take 3)

Christoph,

Am 12.05.2016 um 13:49 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> the series looks fine to me, but it fails to address the root cause:

Is this a Reviewed-by? :-)

> that we have an inherently dangerous default for ->migratepage that
> assumes that file systems are implemented a certain way.  I think the
> series should also grow a third patch to remove the default and just
> wire it up for the known good file systems, although we'd need some
> input on what known good is.
>
> Any idea what filesystems do get regular testing with code that's using
> CMA? A good approximation might be those that use the bufer_head
> based aops from fs/buffer.c

No idea how much is being tested.
I fear most issues are unknown. At least for UBIFS it took
years to get aware of the issue.
Thanks again to Maxime and Boris for providing a reproducer.

There are two classes of issues:
a) filesystems that use buffer_migrate_page() but shouldn't
b) filesystems that don't implement ->migratepage() and fallback_migrate_page()
   is not suitable.

As starter we could kill the automatic assignment of fallback_migrate_page() and
non-buffer_head filesystems need to figure out whether fallback_migrate_page()
is suitable or not.
UBIFS found out the hard way. ;-\

MM folks, do we have a way to force page migration?
Maybe we can create a generic stress test.

Thanks,
//richard