Re: [PATCH -v3] ext4: fix unjournaled inode bitmap modification

[Eric Sandeen]

On 10/28/12 9:30 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 11:23:57PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> A little more going on here to try to properly handle error
>> cases & moving to the next group; despite
>> ext4_handle_release_buffer being a no-op, I've tried
>> to sprinkle it in at the right places.  Double checking
>> on review is probably a fine idea ;)
> 
> Sorry, I didn't see your newer version of your patch.  I'm not
> convinced it's worth it to try to get the calls to
> ext4_handle_release_buffer() right.  There are plenty of other places
> where we're not calling ext4_handle_release_buffer(), and I'm not
> convinced it would ever be useful to make it be something other than a
> no-op.  

Fair enough, I went a little overboard.

> In order to make it be useful, we'd have to enforce a rule
> that every single get_write_access() was matched with either a
> handle_dirty_metadata() or a handle_release_buffer().  That would be
> tricky; worse, we'd have to keep track of a refcount on each bh, which
> would cost us on the scalability front.  The main benefit would be
> that might be able to be able to reclaim bh's where we called
> get_write_access() and then changed our mind, but that's relatively
> rare, and I think it's easier to simply be more careful about calling
> get_write_acceess() until we're sure we're going to need write access.
> 
> Hence in my version of the patch, I've waited until right before the
> call to ext4_lock_group() before calling get_write_access().  Note
> that it's safe to call get_write_access() on a bh twice; the second
> time the jbd2 layer will notice that the bh is already a part of the
> transaction.

Yeah, I guess that's the norm.

So on the one hand you delay calling it until we're sure we need
it; OTOH it's no big deal if it does get called twice :)

> Also, leaving out the calls to ext4_handle_release_buffer() makes the
> patch easier to understand and reason about.

Fair enough.

> What do you think of this version?

Looks fine, tests fine.  Ship it ;)

-Eric

> 						- Ted
> 
> commit 67d725143e9e7ea458a0c1c4a6625657c3dc7ba2
> Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Sun Oct 28 22:24:57 2012 -0400
> 
>     ext4: fix unjournaled inode bitmap modification
>     
>     commit 119c0d4460b001e44b41dcf73dc6ee794b98bd31 changed
>     ext4_new_inode() such that the inode bitmap was being modified
>     outside a transaction, which could lead to corruption, and was
>     discovered when journal_checksum found a bad checksum in the
>     journal during log replay.
>     
>     Nix ran into this when using the journal_async_commit mount
>     option, which enables journal checksumming.  The ensuing
>     journal replay failures due to the bad checksums led to
>     filesystem corruption reported as the now infamous
>     "Apparent serious progressive ext4 data corruption bug"
>     
>     [ Changed by tytso to only call ext4_journal_get_write_access() only
>       when we're fairly certain that we're going to allocate the inode. ]
>     
>     I've tested this by mounting with journal_checksum and
>     running fsstress then dropping power; I've also tested by
>     hacking DM to create snapshots w/o first quiescing, which
>     allows me to test journal replay repeatedly w/o actually
>     power-cycling the box.  Without the patch I hit a journal
>     checksum error every time.  With this fix it survives
>     many iterations.
>     
>     Reported-by: Nix <nix@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>     Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>
>     Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/ialloc.c b/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
> index 4facdd2..3a100e7 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
> @@ -725,6 +725,10 @@ repeat_in_this_group:
>  				   "inode=%lu", ino + 1);
>  			continue;
>  		}
> +		BUFFER_TRACE(inode_bitmap_bh, "get_write_access");
> +		err = ext4_journal_get_write_access(handle, inode_bitmap_bh);
> +		if (err)
> +			goto fail;
>  		ext4_lock_group(sb, group);
>  		ret2 = ext4_test_and_set_bit(ino, inode_bitmap_bh->b_data);
>  		ext4_unlock_group(sb, group);
> @@ -738,6 +742,11 @@ repeat_in_this_group:
>  	goto out;
>  
>  got:
> +	BUFFER_TRACE(inode_bitmap_bh, "call ext4_handle_dirty_metadata");
> +	err = ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(handle, NULL, inode_bitmap_bh);
> +	if (err)
> +		goto fail;
> +
>  	/* We may have to initialize the block bitmap if it isn't already */
>  	if (ext4_has_group_desc_csum(sb) &&
>  	    gdp->bg_flags & cpu_to_le16(EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT)) {
> @@ -771,11 +780,6 @@ got:
>  			goto fail;
>  	}
>  
> -	BUFFER_TRACE(inode_bitmap_bh, "get_write_access");
> -	err = ext4_journal_get_write_access(handle, inode_bitmap_bh);
> -	if (err)
> -		goto fail;
> -
>  	BUFFER_TRACE(group_desc_bh, "get_write_access");
>  	err = ext4_journal_get_write_access(handle, group_desc_bh);
>  	if (err)
> @@ -823,11 +827,6 @@ got:
>  	}
>  	ext4_unlock_group(sb, group);
>  
> -	BUFFER_TRACE(inode_bitmap_bh, "call ext4_handle_dirty_metadata");
> -	err = ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(handle, NULL, inode_bitmap_bh);
> -	if (err)
> -		goto fail;
> -
>  	BUFFER_TRACE(group_desc_bh, "call ext4_handle_dirty_metadata");
>  	err = ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(handle, NULL, group_desc_bh);
>  	if (err)
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/