| 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: <39c8b5c1-8c8c-40de-9b09-b28b24cc270d@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:51:18 +0800
From: "wangjianjian (C)" <wangjianjian3@...wei.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>, Wang Jianjian
<wangjianjian0@...mail.com>
CC: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...ux.dev>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com>,
<linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ext4: fix fast commit inode enqueueing during a full
journal commit
On 2024/7/12 3:28, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2024, at 10:16 AM, Wang Jianjian <wangjianjian0@...mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2024/7/11 23:16, Luis Henriques wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 11 2024, wangjianjian (C) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024/7/11 16:35, Luis Henriques (SUSE) wrote:
>>>>> When a full journal commit is on-going, any fast commit has to be enqueued
>>>>> into a different queue: FC_Q_STAGING instead of FC_Q_MAIN. This enqueueing
>>>>> is done only once, i.e. if an inode is already queued in a previous fast
>>>>> commit entry it won't be enqueued again. However, if a full commit starts
>>>>> _after_ the inode is enqueued into FC_Q_MAIN, the next fast commit needs to
>>>>> be done into FC_Q_STAGING. And this is not being done in function
>>>>> ext4_fc_track_template().
>>>>> This patch fixes the issue by re-enqueuing an inode into the STAGING queue
>>>>> during the fast commit clean-up callback if it has a tid (i_sync_tid)
>>>>> greater than the one being handled. The STAGING queue will then be spliced
>>>>> back into MAIN.
>>>>> This bug was found using fstest generic/047. This test creates several 32k
>>>>> bytes files, sync'ing each of them after it's creation, and then shutting
>>>>> down the filesystem. Some data may be loss in this operation; for example a
>>>>> file may have it's size truncated to zero.
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques (SUSE) <luis.henriques@...ux.dev>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>> v4 of this patch enqueues the inode into STAGING *only* if the current tid
>>>>> is non-zero. It will be zero when doing an fc commit, and this would mean
>>>>> to always re-enqueue the inode. This fixes the regressions caught by Ted
>>>>> in v3 with fstests generic/472 generic/496 generic/643.
>>>>> Also, since 2nd patch of v3 has already been merged, I've rebased this patch
>>>>> to be applied on top of it.
>>>>> fs/ext4/fast_commit.c | 10 ++++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/fast_commit.c b/fs/ext4/fast_commit.c
>>>>> index 3926a05eceee..facbc8dbbaa2 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/ext4/fast_commit.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/ext4/fast_commit.c
>>>>> @@ -1290,6 +1290,16 @@ static void ext4_fc_cleanup(journal_t *journal, int full, tid_t tid)
>>>>> EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING);
>>>>> if (tid_geq(tid, iter->i_sync_tid))
>>>>> ext4_fc_reset_inode(&iter->vfs_inode);
>>>>> + } else if (tid) {
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * If the tid is valid (i.e. non-zero) re-enqueue the
>>>> one quick question about tid, if one disk is using long time and its tid get
>>>> wrapped to 0, is it a valid seq? I don't find code handling this situation.
>>> Hmm... OK. So, to answer to your question, the 'tid' is expected to wrap.
>>> That's why we use:
>>>
>>> if (tid_geq(tid, iter->i_sync_tid))
>> Yes, I know this.
>>>
>>> instead of:
>>>
>>> if (tid >= iter->i_sync_tid)
>>>
>>> (The second patch in v3 actually fixed a few places where the tid_*()
>>> helpers weren't being used.)
>>>
>>> But your question shows me that my patch is wrong as '0' may actually be a
>>> valid 'tid' value.
>>
>> Actually my question is, there are some place use '0' to check if a transaction is valid, e.g.
>>
>> In ext4_wait_for_tail_page_commit()
>>
>> 5218 while (1) {
>> 5219 struct folio *folio = filemap_lock_folio(inode->i_mapping,
>> 5220 inode->i_size >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>> 5221 if (IS_ERR(folio))
>> 5222 return;
>> 5223 ret = __ext4_journalled_invalidate_folio(folio, offset,
>> 5224 folio_size(folio) - offset);
>> 5225 folio_unlock(folio);
>> 5226 folio_put(folio);
>> 5227 if (ret != -EBUSY)
>> 5228 return;
>> 5229 commit_tid = 0;
>> 5230 read_lock(&journal->j_state_lock);
>> 5231 if (journal->j_committing_transaction)
>> 5232 commit_tid = journal->j_committing_transaction->t_tid;
>> 5233 read_unlock(&journal->j_state_lock);
>> 5234 if (commit_tid)
>> 5235 jbd2_log_wait_commit(journal, commit_tid);
>> 5236 }
>> 5237 We only wait commit if tid is not zero.
>>
>> And in __jbd2_log_wait_for_space()
>>
>> 79 if (space_left < nblocks) {
>> 80 int chkpt = journal->j_checkpoint_transactions != NULL;
>> 81 tid_t tid = 0;
>> 82
>> 83 if (journal->j_committing_transaction)
>> 84 tid = journal->j_committing_transaction->t_tid;
>> 85 spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
>> 86 write_unlock(&journal->j_state_lock);
>> 87 if (chkpt) {
>> 88 jbd2_log_do_checkpoint(journal);
>> 89 } else if (jbd2_cleanup_journal_tail(journal) == 0) {
>> 90 /* We were able to recover space; yay! */
>> 91 ;
>> 92 } else if (tid) {
>> 93 /*
>> 94 * jbd2_journal_commit_transaction() may want
>> 95 * to take the checkpoint_mutex if JBD2_FLUSHED
>> 96 * is set. So we need to temporarily drop it.
>> 97 */
>> 98 mutex_unlock(&journal->j_checkpoint_mutex);
>> 99 jbd2_log_wait_commit(journal, tid);
>> 100 write_lock(&journal->j_state_lock);
>> 101 continue;
>> We also only wait commit if tid is not zero.
>>
>> Does it mean all these have bugs if '0' is a valid 'tid' ?
>>
>> But on the other hand, if we don't consider sync and fsync, and default commit interval is 5s,
>>
>> time of tid wrap to 0 is nearly 680 years. However, we can run sync/fsync to make tid to increase
>>
>> more quickly in real world ?
>
> The simple solution is that "0" is not a valid sequence. It looks like
> this is a bug in jbd2_get_transaction() where it is incrementing the TID:
>
> transaction->t_tid = journal->j_transaction_sequence++;
>
> it should add a check to handle the wrap-around:
>
> if (unlikely(transaction->t_tid == 0))
> transaction->t_tid = journal->j_transaction_sequence++;
Yes, I had ever thought about this, just curious why nobody encounter
problems here.
>
> Cheers, Andreas
>
>
>
>
>
--
Regards
Powered by blists - more mailing lists