linux-kernel - Re: PROBLEM: Recent raid10 block discard patchset causes filesystem corruption on fstrim

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:   Tue, 2 Feb 2021 16:42:20 +1300
From:   Matthew Ruffell <matthew.ruffell@...onical.com>
To:     Xiao Ni <xni@...hat.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc:     linux-raid <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>,
        Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@...ud.ionos.com>,
        "khalid.elmously@...onical.com" <khalid.elmously@...onical.com>,
        Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Recent raid10 block discard patchset causes filesystem
 corruption on fstrim

Hi Xiao,

On 24/12/20 11:18 pm, Xiao Ni wrote:> The root cause is found. Now we use a similar way with raid0 to handle discard request
> for raid10. Because the discard region is very big, we can calculate the start/end address
> for each disk. Then we can submit the discard request to each disk. But for raid10, it has
> copies. For near layout, if the discard request doesn't align with chunk size, we calculate
> a start_disk_offset. Now we only use start_disk_offset for the first disk, but it should be
> used for the near copies disks too.

Thanks for finding the root cause and making a patch that corrects the offset
addresses for multiple disks!

> 
> [  789.709501] discard bio start : 70968, size : 191176
> [  789.709507] first stripe index 69, start disk index 0, start disk offset 70968
> [  789.709509] last stripe index 256, end disk index 0, end disk offset 262144
> [  789.709511] disk 0, dev start : 70968, dev end : 262144
> [  789.709515] disk 1, dev start : 70656, dev end : 262144
> 
> For example, in this test case, it has 2 near copies. The start_disk_offset for the first disk is 70968.
> It should use the same offset address for second disk. But it uses the start address of this chunk.
> It discard more region. The patch in the attachment can fix this problem. It split the region that
> doesn't align with chunk size.

Just wondering, what is the current status of the patchset? Is there anything
that I can do to help? 

> 
> There is another problem. The stripe size should be calculated differently for near layout and far layout.
> 

I can help review the patch and help test the patches anytime. Do you need help
with making a patch to calculate the stripe size for near and far layouts?

Let me know how you are going with this patchset, and if there is anything I
can do for you.

Thanks,
Matthew

> @Song, do you want me to use a separate patch for this fix, or fix this in the original patch?
> 
> Merry Christmas
> Xiao
>