| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 11:59:29 +0530
From: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>
To: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu,
adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, yukuai3@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix warning when submitting superblock in
ext4_commit_super()
On 22/05/19 11:13AM, Zhang Yi wrote:
> On 2022/5/19 1:06, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > On 22/05/18 10:10PM, Zhang Yi wrote:
> >> We have already check the io_error and uptodate flag before submitting
> >> the superblock buffer, and re-set the uptodate flag if it has been
> >> failed to write out. But it was lockless and could be raced by another
> >> ext4_commit_super(), and finally trigger '!uptodate' WARNING when
> >> marking buffer dirty. Fix it by submit buffer directly.
> >
> > I agree that there could be a race with multiple processes trying to call
> > ext4_commit_super(). Do you have a easy reproducer for this issue?
> >
>
> Sorry, I don't have a easy reproducer, but we can always reproduce it through
> inject delay and add filters into the ext4_commit_super().
Sure, thanks for sharing.
>
> 1. Apply below diff.
> static int ext4_commit_super(struct super_block *sb)
> {
> struct buffer_head *sbh = EXT4_SB(sb)->s_sbh;
> @@ -6026,9 +6027,22 @@ static int ext4_commit_super(struct super_block *sb)
> set_buffer_uptodate(sbh);
> }
> BUFFER_TRACE(sbh, "marking dirty");
> + if (!strcmp(current->comm, "touch"))
> + pr_err("touch (%d) enter\n", current->pid);
> + if (!strcmp(current->comm, "mkdir")) {
> + pr_err("mkdir(%d): wait touch sync\n", current->pid);
> + msleep(1000);
> + pr_err("mkdir(%d): wait touch sync %d\n", current->pid, buffer_uptodate(sbh));
> + }
> mark_buffer_dirty(sbh);
> + if (!strcmp(current->comm, "mkdir"))
> + pr_err("mkdir(%d): mark\n", current->pid);
> error = __sync_dirty_buffer(sbh,
> REQ_SYNC | (test_opt(sb, BARRIER) ? REQ_FUA : 0));
> + if (error) {
> + pr_err("%s(%d) sync fail %d\n", current->comm, current->pid, buffer_uptodate(sbh));
> + msleep(2000);
> + }
> if (buffer_write_io_error(sbh)) {
> ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "I/O error while writing "
> "superblock");
>
> 2. Run this script.
> #!/bin/bash
> echo running > /sys/block/sdb/device/state
> sleep 1
> umount /mnt
> mkfs.ext4 -F -E lazy_itable_init=0,lazy_journal_init=0 /dev/sdb
> mount /dev/sdb -o errors=remount-ro,stripe=2048,data_err=abort /mnt
> mkdir /mnt/dir_a
> mkdir -p /mnt/dir_b
>
> sync
> sync
>
> echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
> echo offline > /sys/block/sdb/device/state
>
> sleep 1
> mkdir /mnt/dir_a/a &
> touch /mnt/dir_b/b
>
>
> [ 1586.472287] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 1586.473834] WARNING: CPU: 14 PID: 1425 at fs/buffer.c:1081 mark_buffer_dirty+0x28f/0x330
> [ 1586.476519] Modules linked in:
> [ 1586.477567] CPU: 14 PID: 1425 Comm: mkdir Not tainted 5.18.0-rc7-dirty #745
> [ 1586.479854] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS ?-20190727_073836-buildvm-ppc4
> [ 1586.482709] RIP: 0010:mark_buffer_dirty+0x28f/0x330
> [ 1586.483400] Code: a8 00 00 00 48 83 05 8f dd 0d 03 01 48 83 e8 01 e9 df fe ff ff 48 83 05 fe e1 0d 033
> [ 1586.488136] RSP: 0018:ffffa8a6c0ef3b90 EFLAGS: 00010202
> [ 1586.490142] RAX: 0000000000116418 RBX: ffff93f5bd899000 RCX: 0000000000000000
> [ 1586.492571] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffffff8bef9549 RDI: ffff93f5bd899000
> [ 1586.494988] RBP: ffff93f5beffd000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffa8a6c0ef39c0
> [ 1586.497380] R10: 0000000000000001 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: ffff93f5b3de0000
> [ 1586.499674] R13: 0000000000000000 R14: ffffffff8b849da0 R15: 0000000000000000
> [ 1586.501964] FS: 00007f561455c0c0(0000) GS:ffff93fc65980000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [ 1586.504493] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> [ 1586.506303] CR2: 00007f5614706f80 CR3: 0000000105534000 CR4: 00000000000006e0
> [ 1586.508561] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> [ 1586.509652] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> [ 1586.510654] Call Trace:
> [ 1586.511560] <TASK>
> [ 1586.512228] ext4_commit_super+0xb1/0x2e0
> [ 1586.513362] ext4_handle_error+0x287/0x2a0
> [ 1586.514508] __ext4_error+0x138/0x240
> [ 1586.515527] ? __might_sleep+0x56/0xb0
> [ 1586.516571] ? __getblk_gfp+0x47/0x630
> [ 1586.517636] ext4_journal_check_start+0xd1/0xf0
> [ 1586.518884] __ext4_journal_start_sb+0x61/0x1f0
> [ 1586.520126] __ext4_new_inode+0x12ee/0x2670
> [ 1586.521283] ? ext4_lookup+0x297/0x340
> [ 1586.522322] ext4_mkdir+0x1a5/0x4f0
> [ 1586.523298] vfs_mkdir+0x7c/0x1b0
> [ 1586.523981] do_mkdirat+0x9e/0x160
> [ 1586.524488] __x64_sys_mkdir+0x41/0x60
> [ 1586.525054] do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
> [ 1586.525590] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> [ 1586.526341] RIP: 0033:0x7f5614710ecb
>
> > Also do you think something like below should fix the problem too?
> > So if you lock the buffer from checking until marking the buffer dirty, that
> > should avoid the race too that you are reporting.
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
> Thanks for your suggestion. I've thought about this solution and yes it's simpler
> to fix the race, but I think we lock and unlock the sbh several times just for
> calling standard buffer write helpers is not so good. Opencode the submit
> procedure looks more clear to me.
I agree your solution was cleaner since it does not has a lot of lock/unlock.
My suggestion came in from looking at the history.
This lock was added here [1] and I think it somehow got removed in this patch[2]
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/1467285150-15977-2-git-send-email-pranjas@gmail.com/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/20201216101844.22917-5-jack@suse.cz/
Rather then solutions, I had few queries :)
1. What are the implications of not using mark_buffer_dirty()/__sync_dirty_buffer()
2. In your solution one thing which I was not clear of, was whether we should
call clear_buffer_dirty() before calling submit_bh(), in case if somehow(?)
the state of the buffer was already marked dirty? Not sure how this can
happen, but I see the logic in mark_buffer_dirty() which checks, if the
buffer is already marked dirty, it simply returns. Then __sync_dirty_buffer()
clears the buffer dirty state.
> Anyway, Your solution is also fine by me.
I think if we get some answers to above. It will give us more confidence on
whether should we open code submit_bh() logic or should we use
mark_buffer_dirty()/__sync_dirty_buffer() (with lock_buffer() to prevent the
warning which you reported).
-ritesh
>
> Thanks,
> Yi.
>
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > index 6900da973ce2..3447841fe654 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > @@ -6007,6 +6007,7 @@ static int ext4_commit_super(struct super_block *sb)
> >
> > ext4_update_super(sb);
> >
> > + lock_buffer(sbh);
> > if (buffer_write_io_error(sbh) || !buffer_uptodate(sbh)) {
> > /*
> > * Oh, dear. A previous attempt to write the
> > @@ -6023,6 +6024,7 @@ static int ext4_commit_super(struct super_block *sb)
> > }
> > BUFFER_TRACE(sbh, "marking dirty");
> > mark_buffer_dirty(sbh);
> > + unlock_buffer(sbh);
> > error = __sync_dirty_buffer(sbh,
> > REQ_SYNC | (test_opt(sb, BARRIER) ? REQ_FUA : 0));
> > if (buffer_write_io_error(sbh)) {
> > .
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists