linux-kernel - Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: update dirty status for CURSEG as well

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <729b4b2c-e35f-d2ee-5641-fb7d75fa217a@kernel.org>
Date:   Sun, 29 Oct 2017 09:06:10 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
To:     Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@...wei.com>, yunlong.song@...oud.com
Cc:     Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>, jaegeuk@...nel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, miaoxie@...wei.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: update dirty status for CURSEG as
 well

Hi Yunlong,

On 2017/10/28 23:58, Yunlong Song wrote:
> Hi Chao,
>     Thanks for your work. I send a v2 patch, which changes refresh_sit_entry to static.

The cleanup looks good to me, but you know, the commit title is not friendly
for reading, what about using common 'Revert: "original commit tile"' here?

Thanks,

> 
> On 2017/10/28 20:02, Chao Yu wrote:
>> Hi Yunlong,
>>
>> I think you're so busy, I just help to refactor your patch, and send it out
>> authored with you, please check that patch, if you have different opinion, let
>> me know.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On 2017/10/16 11:43, Chao Yu wrote:
>>> On 2017/10/14 20:53, Yunlong Song wrote:
>>>> Oh, yes it is. I found that problem in a kernel tree which does not have
>>>> commit
>>>> c6f82fe90d7458e5fa190a6820bfc24f96b0de4e (Revert "f2fs: put allocate_segment
>>>> after refresh_sit_entry"). In that kernel, the allocate_segment is still
>>>> behind
>>>> refresh_sit_entry. Now I understand the commit message:
>>>> "This makes a leak to register dirty segments. I reproduced the issue by
>>>>       modified postmark which injects a lot of file create/delete/update and
>>>>       finally triggers huge number of SSR allocations."
>>>>
>>>> The reason is that if refresh_sit_entry is before allocate_segment, then the
>>>> dirty status of CURSEG is not updated, as a result, the count of dirty
>>>> segments
>>>> is wrong, which is much smaller than its real value. Then the f2fs_gc
>>>> can not
>>>> do its work since it can not even get one victim, then the free segments are
>>>> used up and then triggers much SSR. So Jay reverts the patch.
>>>>
>>>> It seems there are two options:
>>>> (1) keep this patch ([PATCH v2] f2fs: update dirty status for CURSEG as
>>>> well)
>>>> and we can recover commit 3436c4bdb30de421d46f58c9174669fbcfd40ce0
>>>> (f2fs: put allocate_segment after refresh_sit_entry)
>>>> (2) remove this patch at all
>>>>
>>>> It seems (1) is robust, but (2) avoids unnecessary check.
>>> What about reverting 5e443818fa0b ("f2fs: handle dirty segments inside
>>> refresh_sit_entry") to keep the original order:
>>>
>>> 1. update sit info
>>> 2. allocate new segment
>>> 3. update dirty status of segment
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>> On 2017/10/14 8:14, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>> On 2017/10/13 21:21, Yunlong Song wrote:
>>>>>> Without this patch, it will cause all the free segments using up in some
>>>>>> corner case. For example, there are 100 segments, and 20 of them are
>>>>>> reserved for ovp. If 79 segments are full of data, segment 80 becomes
>>>>>> CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and then delete 511 blocks. Since it is
>>>>>> CURSEG segment, the __locate_dirty_segment will not update its dirty
>>>>>> status. Then the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0, f2fs_gc will fail to
>>>>>> get_victim, and f2fs_balance_fs will fail to trigger gc action. After
>>>>>> f2fs_balance_fs returns, f2fs can continue to write data to segment 81.
>>>>>> Again, segment 81 becomes CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and delete
>>>>>> 511 blocks, the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0 and f2fs_gc fail again. This
>>>>>> can finally use up all the free segments and cause panic.
>>>>> Look into this patch again, I found refresh_sit_entry is called after
>>>>> ->allocate_segment, so if all 512 blocks were allocated, log header should
>>>>> have been moved to another segment, so locate_dirty_segment in
>>>>> refresh_sit_entry should update dirty status of previous segment correctly,
>>>>> anything I'm missing?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@...wei.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>    fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 ++--
>>>>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>>>>> index bfbcff8..0fce076 100644
>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>>>>> @@ -687,7 +687,7 @@ static void __locate_dirty_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno,
>>>>>>        struct dirty_seglist_info *dirty_i = DIRTY_I(sbi);
>>>>>>           /* need not be added */
>>>>>> -    if (IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno))
>>>>>> +    if (IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno) && dirty_type == PRE)
>>>>>>            return;
>>>>>>           if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, dirty_i->dirty_segmap[dirty_type]))
>>>>>> @@ -737,7 +737,7 @@ static void locate_dirty_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno)
>>>>>>        struct dirty_seglist_info *dirty_i = DIRTY_I(sbi);
>>>>>>        unsigned short valid_blocks;
>>>>>>    -    if (segno == NULL_SEGNO || IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno))
>>>>>> +    if (segno == NULL_SEGNO)
>>>>>>            return;
>>>>>>           mutex_lock(&dirty_i->seglist_lock);
>>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>> .
>>
>