| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20171107024925.GI88544@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 18:49:25 -0800
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
To: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@...wei.com>
Cc: chao@...nel.org, yuchao0@...wei.com, yunlong.song@...oud.com,
miaoxie@...wei.com, bintian.wang@...wei.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] f2fs: fix out-of-free problem caused by atomic write
On 11/07, Yunlong Song wrote:
> This patch tries its best to collect prefree segments and make it free to be
> used
> in the commit process, or it will use up free segments since prefree
> segments
> can not be used during commit process.
>
> As for your suggestion, I do consider that in an initial patch which does
> not send
> out, but I am afraid that will lead to long latency if the atomic file is
> large and the
> device is almost full and fragmented.
Why? f2fs_balance_fs() would be fine to return, if target # of segments can
be found from prefree_segments() by checkpoint like what you did. Otherwise,
it needs to call f2fs_gc().
>
> On 2017/11/7 9:55, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 11/06, Yunlong Song wrote:
> > > f2fs_balance_fs only actives once in the commit_inmem_pages, but there
> > > are more than one page to commit, so all the other pages will miss the
> > > check. This will lead to out-of-free problem when commit a very large
> > > file. However, we cannot do f2fs_balance_fs for each inmem page, since
> > > this will break atomicity. As a result, we should collect prefree
> > > segments if needed.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@...wei.com>
> > > ---
> > > fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 +
> > > fs/f2fs/segment.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > > index 13a96b8..04ce48f 100644
> > > --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > > @@ -610,6 +610,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info {
> > > struct list_head inmem_pages; /* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */
> > > struct task_struct *inmem_task; /* store inmemory task */
> > > struct mutex inmem_lock; /* lock for inmemory pages */
> > > + unsigned long inmem_blocks; /* inmemory blocks */
> > > struct extent_tree *extent_tree; /* cached extent_tree entry */
> > > struct rw_semaphore dio_rwsem[2];/* avoid racing between dio and gc */
> > > struct rw_semaphore i_mmap_sem;
> > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > > index 46dfbca..b87ede4 100644
> > > --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > > @@ -210,6 +210,7 @@ void register_inmem_page(struct inode *inode, struct page *page)
> > > list_add_tail(&fi->inmem_ilist, &sbi->inode_list[ATOMIC_FILE]);
> > > spin_unlock(&sbi->inode_lock[ATOMIC_FILE]);
> > > inc_page_count(F2FS_I_SB(inode), F2FS_INMEM_PAGES);
> > > + fi->inmem_blocks++;
> > > mutex_unlock(&fi->inmem_lock);
> > > trace_f2fs_register_inmem_page(page, INMEM);
> > > @@ -221,6 +222,7 @@ static int __revoke_inmem_pages(struct inode *inode,
> > > struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(inode);
> > > struct inmem_pages *cur, *tmp;
> > > int err = 0;
> > > + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode);
> > > list_for_each_entry_safe(cur, tmp, head, list) {
> > > struct page *page = cur->page;
> > > @@ -263,6 +265,7 @@ static int __revoke_inmem_pages(struct inode *inode,
> > > list_del(&cur->list);
> > > kmem_cache_free(inmem_entry_slab, cur);
> > > dec_page_count(F2FS_I_SB(inode), F2FS_INMEM_PAGES);
> > > + fi->inmem_blocks--;
> > > }
> > > return err;
> > > }
> > > @@ -302,6 +305,10 @@ void drop_inmem_pages(struct inode *inode)
> > > if (!list_empty(&fi->inmem_ilist))
> > > list_del_init(&fi->inmem_ilist);
> > > spin_unlock(&sbi->inode_lock[ATOMIC_FILE]);
> > > + if (fi->inmem_blocks) {
> > > + f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1);
> > > + fi->inmem_blocks = 0;
> > > + }
> > > mutex_unlock(&fi->inmem_lock);
> > > clear_inode_flag(inode, FI_ATOMIC_FILE);
> > > @@ -326,6 +333,7 @@ void drop_inmem_page(struct inode *inode, struct page *page)
> > > f2fs_bug_on(sbi, !cur || cur->page != page);
> > > list_del(&cur->list);
> > > + fi->inmem_blocks--;
> > > mutex_unlock(&fi->inmem_lock);
> > > dec_page_count(sbi, F2FS_INMEM_PAGES);
> > > @@ -410,6 +418,16 @@ int commit_inmem_pages(struct inode *inode)
> > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&revoke_list);
> > > f2fs_balance_fs(sbi, true);
> > > + if (prefree_segments(sbi)
> > > + && has_not_enough_free_secs(sbi, 0,
> > > + fi->inmem_blocks / BLKS_PER_SEC(sbi))) {
> > > + struct cp_control cpc;
> > > +
> > > + cpc.reason = __get_cp_reason(sbi);
> > > + err = write_checkpoint(sbi, &cpc);
> > > + if (err)
> > > + goto drop;
> > What do you want to guarantee with this? How about passing target # of segments
> > into f2fs_balance_fs() so that f2fs_gc() could secure wanted free space in a
> > loop?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > > + }
> > > f2fs_lock_op(sbi);
> > > set_inode_flag(inode, FI_ATOMIC_COMMIT);
> > > @@ -429,7 +447,7 @@ int commit_inmem_pages(struct inode *inode)
> > > ret = __revoke_inmem_pages(inode, &revoke_list, false, true);
> > > if (ret)
> > > err = ret;
> > > -
> > > +drop:
> > > /* drop all uncommitted pages */
> > > __revoke_inmem_pages(inode, &fi->inmem_pages, true, false);
> > > }
> > > @@ -437,6 +455,10 @@ int commit_inmem_pages(struct inode *inode)
> > > if (!list_empty(&fi->inmem_ilist))
> > > list_del_init(&fi->inmem_ilist);
> > > spin_unlock(&sbi->inode_lock[ATOMIC_FILE]);
> > > + if (fi->inmem_blocks) {
> > > + f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1);
> > > + fi->inmem_blocks = 0;
> > > + }
> > > mutex_unlock(&fi->inmem_lock);
> > > clear_inode_flag(inode, FI_ATOMIC_COMMIT);
> > > --
> > > 1.8.5.2
> > .
> >
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Yunlong Song
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists