linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PATCH] bcache: __write_super to handle page sizes other than 4k

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:   Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:44:38 +0800
From:   Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>
To:     Liang Chen <liangchen.linux@...il.com>
Cc:     kent.overstreet@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PATCH] bcache: __write_super to handle page sizes
 other than 4k

On 2019/12/6 4:55 下午, Liang Chen wrote:
> __write_super assumes super block data starts at offset 0 of the page
> read in with __bread from read_super, which is not true when page size
> is not 4k. We encountered the issue on system with 64K page size - commonly
>  seen on aarch64 architecture.
> 
> Instead of making any assumption on the offset of the data within the page,
> this patch calls __bread again to locate the data. That should not introduce
> an extra io since the page has been held when it's read in from read_super,
> and __write_super is not on performance critical code path.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Liang Chen <liangchen.linux@...il.com>

In general the patch is good for me. Just two minor requests I add them
in line the email.

Thanks.

> ---
>  drivers/md/bcache/super.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
> index a573ce1d85aa..a39450c9bc34 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
> @@ -207,15 +207,27 @@ static void write_bdev_super_endio(struct bio *bio)
>  	closure_put(&dc->sb_write);
>  }
>  
> -static void __write_super(struct cache_sb *sb, struct bio *bio)
> +static int __write_super(struct cache_sb *sb, struct bio *bio,
> +			 struct block_device *bdev)
>  {
> -	struct cache_sb *out = page_address(bio_first_page_all(bio));
> +	struct cache_sb *out;
>  	unsigned int i;
> +	struct buffer_head *bh;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * The page is held since read_super, this __bread * should not
> +	 * cause an extra io read.
> +	 */
> +	bh = __bread(bdev, 1, SB_SIZE);
> +	if (!bh)
> +		goto out_bh;
> +
> +	out = (struct cache_sb *) bh->b_data;

This is quite tricky here. Could you please to move this code piece into
an inline function and add code comments to explain why a read is
necessary for a write.


>  
>  	bio->bi_iter.bi_sector	= SB_SECTOR;
>  	bio->bi_iter.bi_size	= SB_SIZE;
>  	bio_set_op_attrs(bio, REQ_OP_WRITE, REQ_SYNC|REQ_META);
> -	bch_bio_map(bio, NULL);
> +	bch_bio_map(bio, bh->b_data);
>  
>  	out->offset		= cpu_to_le64(sb->offset);
>  	out->version		= cpu_to_le64(sb->version);
> @@ -239,7 +251,14 @@ static void __write_super(struct cache_sb *sb, struct bio *bio)
>  	pr_debug("ver %llu, flags %llu, seq %llu",
>  		 sb->version, sb->flags, sb->seq);
>  
> +	/* The page will still be held without this bh.*/
> +	put_bh(bh);
>  	submit_bio(bio);
> +	return 0;
> +
> +out_bh:
> +	pr_err("Couldn't read super block, __write_super failed");
> +	return -1;
>  }
>  
>  static void bch_write_bdev_super_unlock(struct closure *cl)
> @@ -264,7 +283,8 @@ void bch_write_bdev_super(struct cached_dev *dc, struct closure *parent)
>  
>  	closure_get(cl);
>  	/* I/O request sent to backing device */
> -	__write_super(&dc->sb, bio);
> +	if(__write_super(&dc->sb, bio, dc->bdev))
> +		closure_put(cl);
>  
>  	closure_return_with_destructor(cl, bch_write_bdev_super_unlock);
>  }
> @@ -312,7 +332,9 @@ void bcache_write_super(struct cache_set *c)
>  		bio->bi_private = ca;
>  
>  		closure_get(cl);
> -		__write_super(&ca->sb, bio);
> +		if(__write_super(&ca->sb, bio, ca->bdev))

And here, please add code comments for why closure_put() is necessary here.

> +			closure_put(cl);
> +
>  	}
>  
>  	closure_return_with_destructor(cl, bcache_write_super_unlock);
> 


-- 

Coly Li