linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.16 064/245] dm btree: increase rebalance threshold in _

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]

Message-ID: <lsq.1587683028.323647383@decadent.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 24 Apr 2020 00:04:51 +0100
From:   Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
CC:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Denis Kirjanov <kda@...ux-powerpc.org>,
        "Joe Thornber" <ejt@...hat.com>,
        "Mike Snitzer" <snitzer@...hat.com>, "Hou Tao" <houtao1@...wei.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.16 064/245] dm btree: increase rebalance threshold in
 __rebalance2()

3.16.83-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>

commit 474e559567fa631dea8fb8407ab1b6090c903755 upstream.

We got the following warnings from thin_check during thin-pool setup:

  $ thin_check /dev/vdb
  examining superblock
  examining devices tree
    missing devices: [1, 84]
      too few entries in btree_node: 41, expected at least 42 (block 138, max_entries = 126)
  examining mapping tree

The phenomenon is the number of entries in one node of details_info tree is
less than (max_entries / 3). And it can be easily reproduced by the following
procedures:

  $ new a thin pool
  $ presume the max entries of details_info tree is 126
  $ new 127 thin devices (e.g. 1~127) to make the root node being full
    and then split
  $ remove the first 43 (e.g. 1~43) thin devices to make the children
    reblance repeatedly
  $ stop the thin pool
  $ thin_check

The root cause is that the B-tree removal procedure in __rebalance2()
doesn't guarantee the invariance: the minimal number of entries in
non-root node should be >= (max_entries / 3).

Simply fix the problem by increasing the rebalance threshold to
make sure the number of entries in each child will be greater
than or equal to (max_entries / 3 + 1), so no matter which
child is used for removal, the number will still be valid.

Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>
Acked-by: Joe Thornber <ejt@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
---
 drivers/md/persistent-data/dm-btree-remove.c | 8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/drivers/md/persistent-data/dm-btree-remove.c
+++ b/drivers/md/persistent-data/dm-btree-remove.c
@@ -203,7 +203,13 @@ static void __rebalance2(struct dm_btree
 	struct btree_node *right = r->n;
 	uint32_t nr_left = le32_to_cpu(left->header.nr_entries);
 	uint32_t nr_right = le32_to_cpu(right->header.nr_entries);
-	unsigned threshold = 2 * merge_threshold(left) + 1;
+	/*
+	 * Ensure the number of entries in each child will be greater
+	 * than or equal to (max_entries / 3 + 1), so no matter which
+	 * child is used for removal, the number will still be not
+	 * less than (max_entries / 3).
+	 */
+	unsigned int threshold = 2 * (merge_threshold(left) + 1);
 
 	if (nr_left + nr_right < threshold) {
 		/*