linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/block_dev.c: return the right error in thaw

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]

Date:   Thu, 6 Oct 2016 07:21:58 +1100
From:   Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>,
        Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, farman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        cornelia.huck@...ibm.com, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/block_dev.c: return the right error in thaw_bdev()

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:59:03AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 05-10-16 08:47:42, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:06:15AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Tue 04-10-16 10:53:40, Pierre Morel wrote:
> > > > When triggering thaw-filesystems via magic sysrq, the system enters a
> > > > loop in do_thaw_one(), as thaw_bdev() still returns success if
> > > > bd_fsfreeze_count == 0. To fix this, let thaw_bdev() always return
> > > > error (and simplify the code a bit at the same time).
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The patch looks good.
> > > 
> > 
> > Now that I had a closer look, while the patch indeed gets rid of the
> > infinite loop, the functionality itself does not work properly.
> > 
> > Note I'm not familiar with this code, so chances are I got details
> > wrong. I also don't know the original reasoning.
> > 
> > The current state is that you can freeze by calling either freeze_super
> > or freeze_bdev. The latter bumps bd_fsfreeze_count and calls
> > freeze_super. freeze_super does NOT modify bd_fsfreeze_count.
> > 
> > freeze_bdev is used by device mapper, xfs and e2fs.
> 
> Where is freeze_bdev() used by e2fs?

typo - it's f2fs, and it's usage is copied from XFS. Both of those
usages can be completely ignored for th purposes of this argument,
because they are done in the context of {X,F2}FS_IOC_FSGOINGDOWN.
i.e ioctls to shutdown a filesystem and completely deny access to
it. Freezing is just means to an end - it's just used to prevent any
more IO from being issued by the block device while we do the
filesystem shutdown...

IOWs, These are never used in normal usage by users - they are a
diagnostic tool and, potentially, a get-out-of-gaol-free card that
can be played when something goes wrong with the underlying storage
and the filesystem hangs waiting for it.

Indeed, the code in both does:

	sb = freeze_bdev()
	if (sb && !IS_ERR(sb) {
		do_shutdown()
		thaw_bdev(sb)
	}

Which is perfectly sane and will not cause any sort of unbalanced
freeze behaviour to occur unless the shutdown oopses, in which case
the user has bigger problems than a frozen device...

So in production systems, dm_suspend()->lock_fs()->freeze_bdev() is
the only path that will ever be exercised.

> > Now, looking at *_bdev functions:
> > 
> > > struct super_block *freeze_bdev(struct block_device *bdev)
> > > {       
> > >         struct super_block *sb;
> > >         int error = 0;
> > >         
> > >         mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex);
> > >         if (++bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count > 1) {
> > 
> > No limit is put in place so in principle this will eventually turn negative.
> 
> Yeah, ok, send a fix...

FWIW, that will only overflow if someone tries to freeze their block
device more than *2 billion times* without a thaw. If that happens,
the user has bigger problems to worry about, like the days/weeks the
system couldn't write to the filesystem because it was frozen.... :/

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com