| 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: <20180919223819.GA79681@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 15:38:19 -0700
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
To: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
Cc: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix quota info to adjust recovered data
On 09/19, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/9/19 0:45, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 09/18, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2018/9/18 10:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 09/18, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> On 2018/9/18 9:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>> On 09/13, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2018/9/13 3:54, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2018/9/12 9:40, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2018/9/12 9:25, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2018/9/12 8:27, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/11, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018/9/12 4:15, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fsck.f2fs is able to recover the quota structure, since roll-forward recovery
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can recover it based on previous user information.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get it, both fsck and kernel recover quota file based all inodes'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> uid/gid/prjid, if {x}id didn't change, wouldn't those two recovery result be the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> same?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought that, but had to add this, since I was encountering quota errors right
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> after getting some files recovered. And, I thought it'd make it more safe to do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fsck after roll-forward recovery.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, let me test again without this patch for a while.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm, I just got a fsck failure right after some files recovered.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> To make sure, do you test with "f2fs: guarantee journalled quota data by
> >>>>>>>>>>> checkpoint"? if not, I think there is no guarantee that f2fs can recover
> >>>>>>>>>>> quote info into correct quote file, because, in last checkpoint, quota file
> >>>>>>>>>>> may was corrupted/inconsistent. Right?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Oh, I forget to mention that, I add a patch to fsck to let it noticing
> >>>>>>>>> CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG flag, and by default, fsck will fix corrupted quote
> >>>>>>>>> file if the flag is set, but w/o this flag, quota file is still corrupted
> >>>>>>>>> detected by fsck, I guess there is bug in v8.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In v8, there are two cases we didn't guarantee quota file's consistence:
> >>>>>>>> 1. flush time in block_operation exceed a threshold.
> >>>>>>>> 2. dquot subsystem error occurs.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For above case, fsck should repair the quota file by default.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Okay, I got another failure and it seems CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG was not set
> >>>>>>> during the recovery. So, we have something missing in the recovery in terms
> >>>>>>> of quota updates.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yeah, I checked the code, just found one suspected place:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> find_fsync_dnodes()
> >>>>>> - f2fs_recover_inode_page
> >>>>>> - inc_valid_node_count
> >>>>>> - dquot_reserve_block dquot info is not initialized now
> >>>>>> - add_fsync_inode
> >>>>>> - dquot_initialize
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think we should reserve block for inode block after dquot_initialize(), can
> >>>>>> you confirm this?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let me test this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> >From b90260bc577fe87570b1ef7b134554a8295b1f6c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>>>> From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
> >>>>> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:14:41 -0700
> >>>>> Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: count inode block for recovered files
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If a new file is recovered, we missed to reserve its inode block.
> >>>>
> >>>> I remember, in order to keep line with other filesystem, unlike on-disk, we
> >>>> have to keep backward compatibilty, in memory we don't account block number
> >>>> for f2fs' inode block, but only account inode number for it, so here like
> >>>> we did in inc_valid_node_count(), we don't need to do this.
> >>>
> >>> Okay, I just hit the error again w/o your patch. Another one coming to my mind
> >>> is that caused by uid/gid change during recovery. Let me try out your patch.
> >>
> >> I guess we should update dquot and inode's uid/gid atomically under
> >> lock_op() in f2fs_setattr() to prevent corruption on sys quota file.
> >>
> >> v9 can pass all xfstest cases and por_fsstress case w/ sys quota file
> >> enabled, but w/ normal quota file, I got one regression reported by
> >> generic/232, I fixed in v10, will do some tests and release it later.
> >>
> >> Note that, my fsck can fix corrupted quota file automatically once
> >> CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG is set.
> >
> > I hit failures again with your v9 w/ sysfile quota and modified fsck to detect
>
> That's strange, in my environment, before v9, I always encounter corrupted
> quota sysfile after step 9), after v9, I never hit failure again.
>
> 1) enable fault injection
> 2) run fsstress
> 3) call shutdowon
> 4) kill fsstress
> 5) unmount
> 6) fsck
> 7) mount
> 8) umount
> 9) fsck
> 10) go 1).
>
> > CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG to fix the partition. Note that, if I set NEED_FSCK
> > flag in roll-forward recovery, everything is fine.
>
> I do the test based on codes in my git tree, could you check the result
> again based on my code? in where I just disable nat_bits recovery, not
> sure, in step 6) fsck can break some thing in image.
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/chao/linux.git/log/?h=f2fs-dev
>
> Also, I just send the fsck code, could you check that too?
>
> And I'd like to know your mount option and mkfs option, could you list for me?
I'm just doing this.
https://github.com/jaegeuk/xfstests-f2fs/blob/f2fs/run.sh#L220
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you test v9 first? I didn't encounter quota corruption with your
> >>>> testcase right now. Will check it in cell phone environment.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> fs/f2fs/recovery.c | 5 +++++
> >>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
> >>>>> index 56d34193a74b..bff5cf730e13 100644
> >>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
> >>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
> >>>>> @@ -84,6 +84,11 @@ static struct fsync_inode_entry *add_fsync_inode(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> >>>>> err = dquot_alloc_inode(inode);
> >>>>> if (err)
> >>>>> goto err_out;
> >>>>> + err = dquot_reserve_block(inode, 1);
> >>>>> + if (err) {
> >>>>> + dquot_drop(inode);
> >>>>> + goto err_out;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> entry = f2fs_kmem_cache_alloc(fsync_entry_slab, GFP_F2FS_ZERO);
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> >
> > .
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists