linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bcache: enhancing the security of dirty data writeback

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: <tencent_22DE1AC52BA931BD442CE823@qq.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 11:30:43 +0800
From: "Zhou Jifeng" <zhoujifeng@...inos.com.cn>
To: "Kent Overstreet" <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: "Coly Li" <colyli@...nel.org>, "linux-bcache" <linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcache: enhancing the security of dirty data writeback

On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 at 10:37, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2025 at 10:27:21AM +0800, Zhou Jifeng wrote:
> > In the writeback mode, the current bcache code uses the
> > REQ_OP_WRITE operation to handle dirty data, and clears the bkey
> > dirty flag in the btree during the bio completion callback. I think
> > there might be a potential risk: if in the event of an unexpected
> > power outage, the data in the HDD hardware cache may not have
> > had time to be persisted, then the data in the HDD hardware cache
> > that is pending processing may be lost. Since at this time the bkey
> > dirty flag in the btree has been cleared, the data status recorded
> > by the bkey does not match the actual situation of the SSD and
> > HDD.
> > Am I understanding this correctly?
>
> For what you're describing, we need to make sure the backing device is
> flushed when we're flushing the journal.
>
> It's possible that this isn't handled correctly in bcache; bcachefs
> does, and I wrote that code after bcache - but the bcache version would
> look quite different.
>
> You've read that code more recently than I have - have you checked for
> that?

In the `write_dirty_finish` function, there is an attempt to update the
`bkey` status, but I did not observe any logging writing process. In the
core function `journal_write_unlocked` of bcache for writing logs, I
also couldn't find the code logic for sending a FLUSH command to the
backend HDD.