[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <370a7ef1-885b-66b6-2282-fcc2a1dcfcec@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:48:33 +0800
From: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC: <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, <tytso@....edu>,
<adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, <ritesh.list@...il.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yi.zhang@...wei.com>,
<yukuai3@...wei.com>, Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ext4: fix bug_on in __es_tree_search caused by
wrong s_usr_quota_inum
On 2022/10/24 22:16, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 24-10-22 16:10:53, Jan Kara wrote:
>> On Fri 21-10-22 12:07:30, Baokun Li wrote:
>>> We got a issue as fllows:
>>> ==================================================================
>>> kernel BUG at fs/ext4/extents_status.c:202!
>>> invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
>>> CPU: 1 PID: 810 Comm: mount Not tainted 6.1.0-rc1-next-g9631525255e3 #352
>>> RIP: 0010:__es_tree_search.isra.0+0xb8/0xe0
>>> RSP: 0018:ffffc90001227900 EFLAGS: 00010202
>>> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000077512a0f RCX: 0000000000000000
>>> RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000002a10 RDI: ffff8881004cd0c8
>>> RBP: ffff888177512ac8 R08: 47ffffffffffffff R09: 0000000000000001
>>> R10: 0000000000000001 R11: 00000000000679af R12: 0000000000002a10
>>> R13: ffff888177512d88 R14: 0000000077512a10 R15: 0000000000000000
>>> FS: 00007f4bd76dbc40(0000)GS:ffff88842fd00000(0000)knlGS:0000000000000000
>>> CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>>> CR2: 00005653bf993cf8 CR3: 000000017bfdf000 CR4: 00000000000006e0
>>> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
>>> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
>>> Call Trace:
>>> <TASK>
>>> ext4_es_cache_extent+0xe2/0x210
>>> ext4_cache_extents+0xd2/0x110
>>> ext4_find_extent+0x5d5/0x8c0
>>> ext4_ext_map_blocks+0x9c/0x1d30
>>> ext4_map_blocks+0x431/0xa50
>>> ext4_getblk+0x82/0x340
>>> ext4_bread+0x14/0x110
>>> ext4_quota_read+0xf0/0x180
>>> v2_read_header+0x24/0x90
>>> v2_check_quota_file+0x2f/0xa0
>>> dquot_load_quota_sb+0x26c/0x760
>>> dquot_load_quota_inode+0xa5/0x190
>>> ext4_enable_quotas+0x14c/0x300
>>> __ext4_fill_super+0x31cc/0x32c0
>>> ext4_fill_super+0x115/0x2d0
>>> get_tree_bdev+0x1d2/0x360
>>> ext4_get_tree+0x19/0x30
>>> vfs_get_tree+0x26/0xe0
>>> path_mount+0x81d/0xfc0
>>> do_mount+0x8d/0xc0
>>> __x64_sys_mount+0xc0/0x160
>>> do_syscall_64+0x35/0x80
>>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
>>> </TASK>
>>> ==================================================================
>>>
>>> Above issue may happen as follows:
>>> -------------------------------------
>>> ext4_fill_super
>>> ext4_orphan_cleanup
>>> ext4_enable_quotas
>>> ext4_quota_enable
>>> ext4_iget --> get error inode <5>
>>> ext4_ext_check_inode --> Wrong imode makes it escape inspection
>>> make_bad_inode(inode) --> EXT4_BOOT_LOADER_INO set imode
>>> dquot_load_quota_inode
>>> vfs_setup_quota_inode --> check pass
>>> dquot_load_quota_sb
>>> v2_check_quota_file
>>> v2_read_header
>>> ext4_quota_read
>>> ext4_bread
>>> ext4_getblk
>>> ext4_map_blocks
>>> ext4_ext_map_blocks
>>> ext4_find_extent
>>> ext4_cache_extents
>>> ext4_es_cache_extent
>>> __es_tree_search.isra.0
>>> ext4_es_end --> Wrong extents trigger BUG_ON
>>>
>>> In the above issue, s_usr_quota_inum is set to 5, but inode<5> contains
>>> incorrect imode and disordered extents. Because 5 is EXT4_BOOT_LOADER_INO,
>>> the ext4_ext_check_inode check in the ext4_iget function can be bypassed,
>>> finally, the extents that are not checked trigger the BUG_ON in the
>>> __es_tree_search function. To solve this issue, check whether qf_inode
>>> obtained by ext4_iget is bad_inode.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
>> Looks good to me. Feel free to add:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> Hum, on a second thought: Would not it be better if vfs_setup_quota_inode()
> actually checked for bad inode and refused it with EUCLEAN? That would
> sound like a more generic approach (covers all filesystems) to this
> problem.
>
> Honza
Hello Honza,
Totally agree with you! We initially added the check to
vfs_setup_quota_inode(),
because the check for imode is here. However, in ext4_quota_enable, if
qf_inode
is abnormal, "Bad quota inode..." is printed. Therefore, we feel that
adding a check
here can help us quickly find out where the problem occurs.
Perhaps we should still add the check to vfs_setup_quota_inode() and
also add the
print ino when ext4_enable_quotas fails.
Thank you for your review!
--
With Best Regards,
Baokun Li
Powered by blists - more mailing lists