linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] xfs: Support FS_XFLAG

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240823160337.GA865349@frogsfrogsfrogs>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 09:03:37 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, brauner@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	jack@...e.cz, chandan.babu@...cle.com, dchinner@...hat.com,
	hch@....de, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hare@...e.de,
	martin.petersen@...cle.com, catherine.hoang@...cle.com,
	kbusch@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] xfs: Support FS_XFLAG_ATOMICWRITES for forcealign

On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 09:39:44AM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> On 22/08/2024 21:38, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > This (atomicwrites && !forcealign) ought to be checked in the superblock
> > > > verifier.
> > > You mean in xfs_fs_validate_params(), right?
> > xfs_validate_sb_common, where we do all the other ondisk superblock
> > validation.
> 
> I don't see any other xfs_has_XXX checks in xfs_validate_sb_common(), but
> this could be the first...

The superblock verifier runs at a lower level in the filesystem -- it
checks that the ondisk superblock doesn't contain any inconsistent
fields or impossible feature combinations, etc.  Once the ondisk
superblock is verified, the information there is used to set XFS_FEAT_*
bits in m_features, which is what the xfs_has_* predicates access.

Therefore, you have to look at the raw superblock fields, not the
xfs_has_ predicates:

	if ((sbp->sb_features_ro_compat & XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_ATOMICWRITES) &&
	    !(sbp->sb_features_ro_compat & XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_FORCEALIGN)) {
		xfs_warn(mp, "atomic writes feature requires force align feature.");
		return -EINVAL;
	}

The reason for checking this state here is that atomicwrites absolutely
requires forcealign and that dependency will always be true.

> The only other place in which I see a pattern of similar SB feature flag
> checks is in xfs_finish_flags() for checking xfs_has_crc() &&
> xfs_has_noattr2().
> 
> So if we go with xfs_validate_sb_common(), then should the check in
> xfs_fs_fill_super() for xfs_has_forcealign() && xfs_has_realtime()/reflink()
> be relocated to xfs_validate_sb_common() also:

No.  Contrast the above with (forcealign && !realtime), which at least
in theory is temporary, so that should live in xfs_fs_fill_super.  Or
put another way, xfs_fs_fill_super is where we screen out the kernel
being too stupid to support something it found on disk.

--D

> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20240813163638.3751939-8-john.g.garry@oracle.com/
> 
> Cheers,
> John
>