| 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: <YGPXIhdqWHAysqeY@google.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:57:54 -0700
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
To: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
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 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;
> + 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