| 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: <d0aa3971-0ce4-915d-01de-7d6f3098c463@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:17:46 +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 2021/3/31 9:57, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 03/27, Chao Yu wrote:
>> 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);
>
> Can we do like this?
>
> if (err > 0) {
> err = -EROFS;
> f2fs_err(sbi, "Need to recover fsync data, but "
> "write access unavailable, please try "
> "mount w/ disable_roll_forward or norecovery");
> }
> if (err < 0)
> goto free_meta;
> }
> f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery");
> goto reset_checkpoint;
More clear, revised in v2.
Thanks,
>
>> + 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