| 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: <dad9c2df-02af-5df5-1dd1-9ee1fe91d229@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 18:03:16 +0800
From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] Revert "f2fs: give a warning only for readonly
partition"
On 2021/3/27 9:52, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2021/3/27 1:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>> On 03/26, Chao Yu wrote:
>>> On 2021/3/26 9:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>> On 03/26, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>> On 2021/3/25 9:59, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021/3/25 6:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/24, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021/3/24 12:22, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 03/24, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/3/24 2:39, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/23, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> This reverts commit 938a184265d75ea474f1c6fe1da96a5196163789.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because that commit fails generic/050 testcase which expect failure
>>>>>>>>>>>> during mount a recoverable readonly partition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to change generic/050, since f2fs can recover this partition,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, not sure we can change that testcase, since it restricts all generic
>>>>>>>>>> filesystems behavior. At least, ext4's behavior makes sense to me:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> journal_dev_ro = bdev_read_only(journal->j_dev);
>>>>>>>>>> really_read_only = bdev_read_only(sb->s_bdev) | journal_dev_ro;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> if (journal_dev_ro && !sb_rdonly(sb)) {
>>>>>>>>>> ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR,
>>>>>>>>>> "journal device read-only, try mounting with '-o ro'");
>>>>>>>>>> err = -EROFS;
>>>>>>>>>> goto err_out;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> if (ext4_has_feature_journal_needs_recovery(sb)) {
>>>>>>>>>> if (sb_rdonly(sb)) {
>>>>>>>>>> ext4_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "INFO: recovery "
>>>>>>>>>> "required on readonly filesystem");
>>>>>>>>>> if (really_read_only) {
>>>>>>>>>> ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "write access "
>>>>>>>>>> "unavailable, cannot proceed "
>>>>>>>>>> "(try mounting with noload)");
>>>>>>>>>> err = -EROFS;
>>>>>>>>>> goto err_out;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>> ext4_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "write access will "
>>>>>>>>>> "be enabled during recovery");
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> even though using it as readonly. And, valid checkpoint can allow for user to
>>>>>>>>>>> read all the data without problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> if (f2fs_hw_is_readonly(sbi)) {
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since device is readonly now, all write to the device will fail, checkpoint can
>>>>>>>>>> not persist recovered data, after page cache is expired, user can see stale data.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My point is, after mount with ro, there'll be no data write which preserves the
>>>>>>>>> current status. So, in the next time, we can recover fsync'ed data later, if
>>>>>>>>> user succeeds to mount as rw. Another point is, with the current checkpoint, we
>>>>>>>>> should not have any corrupted metadata. So, why not giving a chance to show what
>>>>>>>>> data remained to user? I think this can be doable only with CoW filesystems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess we're talking about the different things...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me declare two different readonly status:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. filesystem readonly: file system is mount with ro mount option, and
>>>>>>>> app from userspace can not modify any thing of filesystem, but filesystem
>>>>>>>> itself can modify data on device since device may be writable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. device readonly: device is set to readonly status via 'blockdev --setro'
>>>>>>>> command, and then filesystem should never issue any write IO to the device.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, what I mean is, *when device is readonly*, rather than f2fs mountpoint
>>>>>>>> is readonly (f2fs_hw_is_readonly() returns true as below code, instead of
>>>>>>>> f2fs_readonly() returns true), in this condition, we should not issue any
>>>>>>>> write IO to device anyway, because, AFAIK, write IO will fail due to
>>>>>>>> bio_check_ro() check.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In that case, mount(2) will try readonly, no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, if device is readonly, mount (2) can not mount/remount device to rw
>>>>>> mountpoint.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any other concern about this patch?
>>>>
>>>> Indeed we're talking about different things. :)
>>>>
>>>> This case is mount(ro) with device(ro) having some data to recover.
>>>> My point is why not giving a chance to mount(ro) to show the current data
>>>> covered by a valid checkpoint. This doesn't change anything in the disk,
>>> Got your idea.
>>>
>>> IMO, it has potential issue in above condition:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since device is readonly now, all write to the device will fail, checkpoint can
>>>>>>>>>> not persist recovered data, after page cache is expired, user can see stale data.
>>>
>>> e.g.
>>>
>>> Recovery writes one inode and then triggers a checkpoint, all writes fail
>>
>> I'm confused. Currently we don't trigger the roll-forward recovery.
>
> Oh, my miss, sorry. :-P
>
> My point is in this condition we can return error and try to notice user to
> mount with disable_roll_forward or norecovery option, then at least user can
> know he should not expect last fsynced data in newly mounted image.
>
> Or we can use f2fs_recover_fsync_data() to check whether there is fsynced data,
> if there is no such data, then let mount() succeed.
Something like this, maybe:
---
fs/f2fs/super.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
index 954b1fe97d67..5e1a1caf412d 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
@@ -3966,10 +3966,19 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
* previous checkpoint was not done by clean system shutdown.
*/
if (f2fs_hw_is_readonly(sbi)) {
- if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG))
- f2fs_err(sbi, "Need to recover fsync data, but write access unavailable");
- else
- f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery");
+ if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG)) {
+ err = f2fs_recover_fsync_data(sbi, true);
+ if (!err)
+ goto reset_checkpoint;
+ else if (err < 0)
+ goto free_meta;
+ err = -EROFS;
+ f2fs_err(sbi, "Need to recover fsync data, but "
+ "write access unavailable, please try "
+ "mount w/ disable_roll_forward or norecovery");
+ goto free_meta;
+ }
+ f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery");
goto reset_checkpoint;
}
--
2.29.2
Thanks,
>
> Thanks,
>
>>
>>> due to device is readonly, once inode cache is reclaimed by vm, user will see
>>> old inode when reloading it, or even see corrupted fs if partial meta inode's
>>> cache is expired.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>> and in the next time, it allows mount(rw|ro) with device(rw) to recover
>>>> the data seamlessly.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> # blockdev --setro /dev/vdb
>>>>>>> # mount -t f2fs /dev/vdb /mnt/test/
>>>>>>> mount: /mnt/test: WARNING: source write-protected, mounted read-only.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if (f2fs_hw_is_readonly(sbi)) {
>>>>>>>> - if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG)) {
>>>>>>>> - err = -EROFS;
>>>>>>>> + if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG))
>>>>>>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "Need to recover fsync data, but write access unavailable");
>>>>>>>> - goto free_meta;
>>>>>>>> - }
>>>>>>>> - f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery");
>>>>>>>> + else
>>>>>>>> + f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery");
>>>>>>>> goto reset_checkpoint;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the case of filesystem is readonly and device is writable, it's fine
>>>>>>>> to do recovery in order to let user to see fsynced data.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am I missing something?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: 938a184265d7 ("f2fs: give a warning only for readonly partition")
>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 8 +++++---
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>>>>>>>>>> index b48281642e98..2b78ee11f093 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3952,10 +3952,12 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
>>>>>>>>>>>> * previous checkpoint was not done by clean system shutdown.
>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>> if (f2fs_hw_is_readonly(sbi)) {
>>>>>>>>>>>> - if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG))
>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG)) {
>>>>>>>>>>>> + err = -EROFS;
>>>>>>>>>>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "Need to recover fsync data, but write access unavailable");
>>>>>>>>>>>> - else
>>>>>>>>>>>> - f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery");
>>>>>>>>>>>> + goto free_meta;
>>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>>> + f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery");
>>>>>>>>>>>> goto reset_checkpoint;
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.29.2
>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
>>>>>> Linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>> .
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists