linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] btrfs: Fix transaction abort during failure in del_balance

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: <CAL3q7H49CYEJWv6-zDY2VxTL5MgJtrFL+KEwKrJJFii-exmyyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 10:50:12 +0100
From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...nel.org>
To: dsterba@...e.cz
Cc: Yangtao Li <frank.li@...o.com>, clm@...com, josef@...icpanda.com, dsterba@...e.com, 
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] btrfs: Fix transaction abort during failure in del_balance_item()

On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 12:04 AM David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 03:53:04PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 1:19 PM Yangtao Li <frank.li@...o.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Handle errors by adding explicit btrfs_abort_transaction
> > > and btrfs_end_transaction calls.
> >
> > Again, like in the previous patch, why?
> > This provides no reason at all why we should abort.
> > And the same comment below.
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <frank.li@...o.com>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 11 +++++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > > index 347c475028e0..23739d18d833 100644
> > > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > > @@ -3777,7 +3777,7 @@ static int del_balance_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> > >         struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans;
> > >         BTRFS_PATH_AUTO_FREE(path);
> > >         struct btrfs_key key;
> > > -       int ret, err;
> > > +       int ret;
> > >
> > >         path = btrfs_alloc_path();
> > >         if (!path)
> > > @@ -3800,10 +3800,13 @@ static int del_balance_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> > >         }
> > >
> > >         ret = btrfs_del_item(trans, root, path);
> > > +       if (ret)
> > > +               goto out;
> > > +
> > > +       return btrfs_commit_transaction(trans);
> > >  out:
> > > -       err = btrfs_commit_transaction(trans);
> > > -       if (err && !ret)
> > > -               ret = err;
> > > +       btrfs_abort_transaction(trans, ret);
> > > +       btrfs_end_transaction(trans);
> >
> > A transaction abort will turn the fs into RO mode, and it's meant to
> > be used when we can't proceed with changes to the fs after we did
> > partial changes, to avoid leaving things in an inconsistent state.
> > Here we don't abort because we haven't done any changes before using
> > the transaction handle, so an abort is pointless and will turn the fs
> > into RO mode unnecessarily.
>
> The del_balance_item() case seems to be unique, there's only one caller
> reset_balance_state() that calls btrfs_handle_fs_error() in case of an
> error. This is almost the same as a transaction abort, but
> del_balance_item() may be called from various contexts.
>
> The error handling may be improved here, e.g. some callers may care
> about the actual error of del_balance_item/reset_balance_state, but
> rather a hard transaction abort it could be better to handle it more
> gracefully for operations that are restartable, like return an EAGAIN.

That's just not possible in 2 cases out of 3 (btrfs_cancel_balance()
being the exception where it's possible), since we already have an
error return value to return to user space.
The btrfs_handle_fs_error() call is exaggerated and doesn't accomplish
anything as the balance item was already persisted in a transaction
committed previously.