| 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: <20250912033609.3033352-1-wangzijie1@honor.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 11:36:09 +0800
From: wangzijie <wangzijie1@...or.com>
To: <chao@...nel.org>
CC: <feng.han@...or.com>, <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
<linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<wangzijie1@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: fix wrong extent_info data for precache extents
>On 9/11/2025 5:07 PM, wangzijie wrote:
>>> On 9/10/25 21:58, wangzijie wrote:
>>>> When the data layout is like this:
>>>> dnode1: dnode2:
>>>> [0] A [0] NEW_ADDR
>>>> [1] A+1 [1] 0x0
>>>> ... ....
>>>> [1016] A+1016
>>>> [1017] B (B!=A+1017) [1017] 0x0
>>>>
>>>> We can build this kind of layout by following steps(with i_extra_isize:36):
>>>> ./f2fs_io write 1 0 1881 rand dsync testfile
>>>> ./f2fs_io write 1 1881 1 rand buffered testfile
>>>> ./f2fs_io fallocate 0 7708672 4096 testfile
>>>>
>>>> And when we map first data block in dnode2, we will get wrong extent_info data:
>>>> map->m_len = 1
>>>> ofs = start_pgofs - map->m_lblk = 1882 - 1881 = 1
>>>>
>>>> ei.fofs = start_pgofs = 1882
>>>> ei.len = map->m_len - ofs = 1 - 1 = 0
>>>>
>>>> Fix it by skipping updating this kind of extent info.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: wangzijie <wangzijie1@...or.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 3 +++
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>> index 7961e0ddf..b8bb71852 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>> @@ -1649,6 +1649,9 @@ int f2fs_map_blocks(struct inode *inode, struct f2fs_map_blocks *map, int flag)
>>>>
>>>> switch (flag) {
>>>> case F2FS_GET_BLOCK_PRECACHE:
>>>> + if (__is_valid_data_blkaddr(map->m_pblk) &&
>>>> + start_pgofs - map->m_lblk == map->m_len)
>>>> + map->m_flags &= ~F2FS_MAP_MAPPED;
>>>
>>> It looks we missed to reset value for map variable in f2fs_precache_extents(),
>>> what do you think of this?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> fs/f2fs/file.c | 4 +++-
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
>>> index 1aae4361d0a8..2b14151d4130 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
>>> @@ -3599,7 +3599,7 @@ static int f2fs_ioc_io_prio(struct file *filp, unsigned long arg)
>>> int f2fs_precache_extents(struct inode *inode)
>>> {
>>> struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode);
>>> - struct f2fs_map_blocks map;
>>> + struct f2fs_map_blocks map = { 0 };
>>> pgoff_t m_next_extent;
>>> loff_t end;
>>> int err;
>>> @@ -3617,6 +3617,8 @@ int f2fs_precache_extents(struct inode *inode)
>>>
>>> while (map.m_lblk < end) {
>>> map.m_len = end - map.m_lblk;
>>> + map.m_pblk = 0;
>>> + map.m_flags = 0;
>>>
>>> f2fs_down_write(&fi->i_gc_rwsem[WRITE]);
>>> err = f2fs_map_blocks(inode, &map, F2FS_GET_BLOCK_PRECACHE);
>>> --
>>> 2.49.0
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>> goto sync_out;
>>>> case F2FS_GET_BLOCK_BMAP:
>>>> map->m_pblk = 0;
>>
>>
>> We have already reset m_flags (map->m_flags = 0) in f2fs_map_blocks().
>
>Zijie:
>
>Oops, that's right, thanks for correcting me.
>
>>
>> I think that this bug is caused by we missed to reset m_flags when we
>> goto next_dnode in below caseļ¼
>>
>> Data layout is something like this:
>> dnode1: dnode2:
>> [0] A [0] NEW_ADDR
>> [1] A+1 [1] 0x0
>> ...
>> [1016] A+1016
>> [1017] B (B!=A+1017) [1017] 0x0
>>
>> we map the last block(valid blkaddr) in dnode1:
>> map->m_flags |= F2FS_MAP_MAPPED;
>> map->m_pblk = blkaddr(valid blkaddr);
>> map->m_len = 1;
>> then we goto next_dnode, meet the first block in dnode2(hole), goto sync_out:
>> map->m_flags & F2FS_MAP_MAPPED == true, and we make wrong blkaddr/len for extent_info.
>
>So, can you please add above explanation into commit message? that
>should be helpful for understanding the problem more clearly.
>
>Please take a look at this case w/ your patch:
>
>mkfs.f2fs -O extra_attr,compression /dev/vdb -f
>mount /dev/vdb /mnt/f2fs -o mode=lfs
>cd /mnt/f2fs
>f2fs_io write 1 0 1883 rand dsync testfile
>f2fs_io fallocate 0 7712768 4096 testfile
>f2fs_io write 1 1881 1 rand buffered testfile
>xfs_io testfile -c "fsync"
>cd /
>umount /mnt/f2fs
>mount /dev/vdb /mnt/f2fs
>f2fs_io precache_extents /mnt/f2fs/testfile
>umount /mnt/f2fs
>
> f2fs_io-733 [010] ..... 78.134136: f2fs_update_read_extent_tree_range: dev = (253,16), ino = 4, pgofs = 1882, len = 0, blkaddr = 17410, c_len = 0
>
>I suspect we need this?
>
>@@ -1784,7 +1781,8 @@ int f2fs_map_blocks(struct inode *inode, struct f2fs_map_blocks *map, int flag)
> }
>
> if (flag == F2FS_GET_BLOCK_PRECACHE) {
>- if (map->m_flags & F2FS_MAP_MAPPED) {
>+ if ((map->m_flags & F2FS_MAP_MAPPED) &&
>+ (map->m_len - ofs)) {
> unsigned int ofs = start_pgofs - map->m_lblk;
>
> f2fs_update_read_extent_cache_range(&dn,
Thanks for pointing out this. Let me find a way to cover these cases and do more test.
>BTW, I find another bug, if one blkaddr is adjcent to previous extent,
>but and it is valid, we need to set m_next_extent to pgofs rather than
>pgofs + 1.
>
>diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>index cbf8841642c7..ac88ed68059c 100644
>--- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>+++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>@@ -1789,8 +1789,11 @@ int f2fs_map_blocks(struct inode *inode, struct f2fs_map_blocks *map, int flag)
> start_pgofs, map->m_pblk + ofs,
> map->m_len - ofs);
> }
>- if (map->m_next_extent)
>- *map->m_next_extent = pgofs + 1;
>+ if (map->m_next_extent) {
>+ *map->m_next_extent = pgofs;
>+ if (!__is_valid_data_blkaddr(blkaddr))
>+ *map->m_next_extent += 1;
>+ }
> }
> f2fs_put_dnode(&dn);
Maybe it can be this?
if (map->m_next_extent)
*map->m_next_extent = is_hole ? pgofs + 1 : pgofs;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists