Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] xfs: correct the zeroing truncate range

From: Zhang Yi
Date: Tue May 21 2024 - 09:46:29 EST

Next message: Simon Horman: "Re: [PATCH net] net: ti: icssg_prueth: Fix NULL pointer dereference in prueth_probe()"
Previous message: Christian Brauner: "Re: [PATCH RFC] fhandle: expose u64 mount id to name_to_handle_at(2)"
In reply to: Darrick J. Wong: "Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] xfs: correct the zeroing truncate range"
Next in thread: Dave Chinner: "Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] xfs: correct the zeroing truncate range"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 2024/5/21 2:37, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 02:56:22PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
>> On 2024/5/19 3:26, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 02:35:02PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
>>>> On 2024/5/18 1:59, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 07:13:55PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
>>>>>> From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When truncating a realtime file unaligned to a shorter size,
>>>>>> xfs_setattr_size() only flush the EOF page before zeroing out, and
>>>>>> xfs_truncate_page() also only zeros the EOF block. This could expose
>>>>>> stale data since 943bc0882ceb ("iomap: don't increase i_size if it's not
>>>>>> a write operation").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the sb_rextsize is bigger than one block, and we have a realtime
>>>>>> inode that contains a long enough written extent. If we unaligned
>>>>>> truncate into the middle of this extent, xfs_itruncate_extents() could
>>>>>> split the extent and align the it's tail to sb_rextsize, there maybe
>>>>>> have more than one blocks more between the end of the file. Since
>>>>>> xfs_truncate_page() only zeros the trailing portion of the i_blocksize()
>>>>>> value, so it may leftover some blocks contains stale data that could be
>>>>>> exposed if we append write it over a long enough distance later.
>>>
>>> Hum. Is this an appending write into the next rtextent? For example,
>>> if you start with a file like this:
>>>
>>> WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWuuuuuuuuu
>>> ^ old EOF
>>>
>>> Then truncate it improperly like this:
>>>
>>> WWWWWzWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWuuuuuuuuu
>>> ^ new EOF
>>>
>>> Then do an extending write like this:
>>>
>>> WWWWWzWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuWWWuuuuuuuuu
>>> ^ EOF ^ next rtx ^ append here
>>>
>>> And now the problem is that we've exposed stale data that should be
>>> zeroes?
>>>
>>> WWWWWzWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuWWWuuuuuuuuu
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ new EOF
>>> should be zeroed
>>>
>>
>> Yeah.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IOWs, any time we truncate down, we need to zero every byte from the new
>>>>> EOF all the way to the end of the allocation unit, correct?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe pictures would be easier to reason with. Say you have
>>>>> rextsize=30 and a partially written rtextent; each 'W' is a written
>>>>> fsblock and 'u' is an unwritten fsblock:
>>>>>
>>>>> WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWuuuuuuuuu
>>>>> ^ old EOF
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you want to truncate down:
>>>>>
>>>>> WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWuuuuuuuuu
>>>>> ^ new EOF ^ old EOF
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, iomap_truncate_blocks only zeroes up to the next i_blocksize,
>>>>> so the truncate leaves the file in this state:
>>>>>
>>>>> WWWWWzWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWuuuuuuuuu
>>>>> ^ new EOF ^ old EOF
>>>>>
>>>>> (where 'z' is a written block with zeroes after EOF)
>>>>>
>>>>> This is bad because the "W"s between the new and old EOF still contain
>>>>> old credit card info or whatever. Now if we mmap the file or whatever,
>>>>> we can access those old contents.
>>>>>
>>>>> So your new patch amends iomap_truncate_page so that it'll zero all the
>>>>> way to the end of the @blocksize parameter. That fixes the exposure by
>>>>> writing zeroes to the pagecache before we truncate down:
>>>>>
>>>>> WWWWWzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzuuuuuuuuu
>>>>> ^ new EOF ^ old EOF
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that correct?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's correct. However, not only write zeros to the pagecache, but
>>>> also flush to disk, please see below for details.
>>>
>>> <nod> iomap_truncate_page writes zeroes to any part of the pagecache
>>> backed by written extents, and then xfs must call
>>> filemap_write_and_wait_range to write the dirty (zeroed) cache out to
>>> disk.
>>>
>>>>> If so, then why don't we make xfs_truncate_page convert the post-eof
>>>>> rtextent blocks back to unwritten status:
>>>>>
>>>>> WWWWWzuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
>>>>> ^ new EOF ^ old EOF
>>>>>
>>>>> If we can do that, then do we need the changes to iomap_truncate_page?
>>>>> Converting the mapping should be much faster than dirtying potentially
>>>>> a lot of data (rt extents can be 1GB in size).
>>>>
>>>> Now that the exposed stale data range (should be zeroed) is only one
>>>> rtextsize unit, if we convert the post-eof rtextent blocks to unwritten,
>>>> it breaks the alignment of rtextent and the definition of "extsize is used
>>>> to specify the size of the blocks in the real-time section of the
>>>> filesystem", is it fine?
>>>
>>> A written -> unwritten extent conversion doesn't change which physical
>>> space extent is mapped to the file data extent; it merely marks the
>>> mapping as unwritten.
>>>
>>> For example, if you start with this mapping:
>>>
>>> {startoff = 8, startblock 256, blockcount = 8, state = written}
>>>
>>> and then convert blocks 13-15 to unwritten, you get:
>>>
>>> {startoff = 8, startblock 256, blockcount = 5, state = written}
>>> {startoff = 13, startblock 261, blockcount = 3, state = unwritten}
>>>
>>> File blocks 8-15 still map to physical space 256-263.
>>
>> Yeah, indeed.
>>
>>>
>>> In xfs, the entire allocation unit is /always/ mapped to the file, even
>>> if parts of it have to be unwritten. Hole punching on rt, for example,
>>> converts the punched region to unwritten. This is (iirc) the key
>>> difference between xfs rt and ext4 bigalloc. xfs doesn't have or need
>>> (or want) the implied cluster allocation code that ext4 has.
>>>
>>
>> I checked the xfs_file_fallocate(), it looks like hole punching on realtime
>> inode is still follow the rtextsize alignment, i.e. if we punch hole on a
>> file that only contains one written extent, it doesn't split it and convet
>> the punched range to unwritten. Please take a look at
>> xfs_file_fallocate()->xfs_free_file_space(), it aligned the freeing range
>> and zeroing out the whole unligned range in one reextsize unit, and
>> FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE is the same.
>>
>> 836 /* We can only free complete realtime extents. */
>> 837 if (xfs_inode_has_bigrtalloc(ip)) {
>> 838 startoffset_fsb = xfs_rtb_roundup_rtx(mp, startoffset_fsb);
>> 839 endoffset_fsb = xfs_rtb_rounddown_rtx(mp, endoffset_fsb);
>> 840 }
>> ...
>> 864 error = xfs_zero_range(ip, offset, len, NULL);
>>
>> And I tested it on my machine, it's true that it doesn't do the convertion.
>>
>> # mkfs.xfs -f -rrtdev=/dev/nvme0n1 -f -m reflink=0,rmapbt=0, -d rtinherit=1 -r extsize=28k /dev/pmem2s
>> # mount -ortdev=/dev/nvme0n1 /dev/pmem2s /mnt/scratch
>> # xfs_io -f -c "pwrite 0 28k" -c "fsync" /mnt/scratch/foo
>> # xfs_io -c "fpunch 4k 24k" /mnt/scratch/foo
>> # umount /mnt/scratch
>>
>> # xfs_db -c "inode 131" -c "p u3.bmx" /dev/pmem2s
>> u3.bmx[0] = [startoff,startblock,blockcount,extentflag]
>> 0:[0,0,7,0]
>>
>> Am I missed something?
>
> I think fpunch is broken here -- xfs definitely supports having
> unwritten mappings in the middle of an allocation unit. See below.
>
>>> I can't tell if there's something that you see that I don't see such
>>> that we really /do/ need to actually write zeroes to the entire tail of
>>> the rtextent; or if you weren't sure that forcing all the post-eof
>>> fsblocks in the rtextent to unwritten (and zapping the pagecache) would
>>> actually preserve the rtextsize alignment.
>>
>> I haven't found any restrictions yet, and I also noticed that a simple
>> write is not guaranteed to align the extent to rtextsize, since the write
>> back path doesn't zeroing out the extra blocks that align to the
>> rtextsize.
>>
>> # #extsize=28k
>> # xfs_io -d -f -c "pwrite 0 4k" -c "fsync" /mnt/scratch/foo
>> # xfs_db -c "inode 131" -c "p u3.bmx" /dev/pmem2s
>> u3.bmx[0-1] = [startoff,startblock,blockcount,extentflag]
>> 0:[0,0,1,0]
>> 1:[1,1,6,1]
>>
>> So I guess convert the tail fsblocks of the rtextent to unwritten status
>> could work. However, I'm a little confused, besides the write operation,
>> other operations like above punch hold and zero range, they seem to be
>> doing their best to follow the alignment rule since commit fe341eb151ec
>> ("xfs: ensure that fpunch, fcollapse, and finsert operations are aligned
>> to rt extent size") [1], it looks like this commit is to fix some issues,
>> so I'm not sure that converting to unwritten would always preserve the
>> rtextsize alignment.
>>
>> [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/159950168085.582172.4254559621934598919.stgit@magnolia/
>
> Looking at commit fe341eb151ec0 ("xfs: ensure that fpunch, fcollapse,
> and finsert operations are aligned to rt extent size"), I think the
> logic in xfs_free_file_space is wrong. If bunmapi is told to unmap a
> partial rt extent, it will instead convert it to unwritten; it only
> unmaps full rt extents. For punch that's ok because punch
> opportunistically removes blocks and zeroes the unaligned segments; for
> zero that's ok because it will falloc the sparse holes and zero the
> rest.
>
> It's only collapse and insert that *require* alignment. That's
> something that should be checked during input validation, and I think
> that got fixed by 25219dbfa734e ("xfs: fix fallocate functions when
> rtextsize is larger than 1").
>

Ha, I see! I didn't notice that xfs_bunmapi() would split and convert
the extent to unwritten for an rt inode. I try to drop the rtextsize
range alignment logic in xfs_free_file_space(), it works as expect
now.

# #reextsize is 28k
# xfs_io -f -c "pwrite 0 28k" -c "fsync" /mnt/scratch/foo
# xfs_io -c "fpunch 4k 24k" /mnt/scratch/foo
# umount /mnt/scratch
# xfs_db -c "inode 131" -c "p u3.bmx" /dev/pmem2s
u3.bmx[0-1] = [startoff,startblock,blockcount,extentflag]
0:[0,0,1,0]
1:[1,1,6,1]

Now, think about the original problem again. I simplified my test case
below,

# #reextsize is 28k
# xfs_io -f -c "pwrite 0 28k" -c "fsync" /mnt/scratch/foo
# xfs_io -c "truncate 4k" /mnt/scratch/foo
# umount /mnt/scratch
# xfs_db -c "inode 131" -c "p u3.bmx" /dev/pmem2s
u3.bmx[0] = [startoff,startblock,blockcount,extentflag]
0:[0,0,7,0]

The expected result should be the same as the fpunch, but it doesn't.
So, It seems that xfs_setattr_size()->xfs_itruncate_extents() doesn't
do the right thing. After check it, the problem is __xfs_bunmapi()
goto the wrong branch, it failed to convert this extent to unwritten
since tp->t_blk_res is zero.

5559 } else if (del.br_startoff == start &&
5560 (del.br_state == XFS_EXT_UNWRITTEN ||
5561 tp->t_blk_res == 0)) {
5562 /*
5563 * Can't make it unwritten. There isn't
5564 * a full extent here so just skip it.
5565 */

May be we should fix this problem by reserve enough blocks when
allocating transaction in xfs_setattr_size? If so, the whole tail
rtextsize aligned blocks beyond EOF could be convert to unwritten
as expected, and we could also avoid writing too much zero,
finally the stale data exposure issue would gone.

>>>
>>> (Or if there's something else?)
>>>
>>>> And IIUC, the upcoming xfs force alignment
>>>> extent feature seems also need to follow this alignment, right?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> xfs_truncate_page() should flush, zeros out the entire rtextsize range,
>>>>>> and make sure the entire zeroed range have been flushed to disk before
>>>>>> updating the inode size.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 943bc0882ceb ("iomap: don't increase i_size if it's not a write operation")
>>>>>> Reported-by: Chandan Babu R <chandanbabu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/0b92a215-9d9b-3788-4504-a520778953c2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>>>> fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c | 10 ----------
>>>>>> 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
>>>>>> index 4958cc3337bc..fc379450fe74 100644
>>>>>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
>>>>>> @@ -1466,12 +1466,39 @@ xfs_truncate_page(
>>>>>> loff_t pos,
>>>>>> bool *did_zero)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> + struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount;
>>>>>> struct inode *inode = VFS_I(ip);
>>>>>> unsigned int blocksize = i_blocksize(inode);
>>>>>> + int error;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (XFS_IS_REALTIME_INODE(ip))
>>>>>> + blocksize = XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, mp->m_sb.sb_rextsize);
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't opencode xfs_inode_alloc_unitsize, please.
>>>>
>>>> Ha, I missed the latest added helper, thanks for pointing this out.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>> + * iomap won't detect a dirty page over an unwritten block (or a
>>>>>> + * cow block over a hole) and subsequently skips zeroing the
>>>>>> + * newly post-EOF portion of the page. Flush the new EOF to
>>>>>> + * convert the block before the pagecache truncate.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + error = filemap_write_and_wait_range(inode->i_mapping, pos,
>>>>>> + roundup_64(pos, blocksize));
>>>>>> + if (error)
>>>>>> + return error;pos_in_block
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok so this is hoisting the filemap_write_and_wait_range call from
>>>>> xfs_setattr_size. It's curious that we need to need to twiddle anything
>>>>> other than the EOF block itself though?
>>>>
>>>> Since we planed to zero out the dirtied range which is ailgned to the
>>>> extsize instead of the blocksize, ensure one block is not unwritten is
>>>> not enough, we should also make sure that the range which is going to
>>>> zero out is not unwritten, or else the iomap_zero_iter() will skip
>>>> zeroing out the extra blocks.
>>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>> before zeroing:
>>>> |<- extszie ->|
>>>> ...dddddddddddddddddddd
>>>> ...UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
>>>> ^ ^
>>>> new EOF old EOF (where 'd' means the pagecache is dirty)
>>>>
>>>> if we only flush the new EOF block, the result becomes:
>>>>
>>>> |<- extszie ->|
>>>> zddddddddddddddddddd
>>>> ZUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
>>>> ^ ^
>>>> new EOF old EOF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> then the dirty extent range that between new EOF block and the old EOF
>>>> block can't be zeroed sine it's still unwritten. So we have to flush the
>>>> whole range before zeroing out.
>>>
>>> "Z" on the second line of the second diagram is a written fsblock with
>>> the tail zeroed, correct?
>>
>> Yeah,
>>
>>>
>>> truncate_setsize -> truncate_pagecache unmaps all the pagecache after
>>> the eof folio and unconditionally zeroes the tail of the eof folio
>>> without regard to the mappings. Doesn't that cover us here? After the
>>> truncate_setsize finishes, won't we end up in this state:
>>>
>>> |<- rextsize ->|
>>> zzzzzzzz
>>> ZUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
>>> ^ ^ ^
>>> new EOF | old EOF
>>> folio boundary
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, this case is fine, but the below case is not fine.
>>
>> truncate write back
>> xfs_setattr_size()
>> xfs_truncate_page()
>> filemap_write_and_wait_range(newsize, newsize) <- A
>> iomap_zero_range() <- B
>> flush dirty pages <- C
>> truncate_setsize() <- D
>>
>> Please assume if a concurrent write back happenes just before
>> truncate_setsize(), the state of the file changes as below:
>>
>> A:
>> |<- extszie ->|
>> wddddddddddddddddddd (pagecache)
>> WUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU (disk)
>> ^ ^
>> (new EOF) old EOF (where 'd' means the pagecache is dirty)
>> (where 'x' means the pagecache contianes user data)
>
> "W", not "x", as you noted.
>
>>
>> B:
>> |<- extszie ->|
>> zddddddddddddddddddd
>> ZUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
>> ^ ^
>> (new EOF) old EOF (where 'z' means the pagecache is zero)
>>
>> C:
>> |<- extszie ->|
>> zwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
>> ZWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
>> ^ ^
>> (new EOF) old EOF
>>
>> D:
>> |<- extszie ->|
>> zzzzzzzzz
>> ZWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
>> ^ ^ ^
>> new EOF | (old EOF)
>> folio boundary
>
> Hmm. At point D we still hold i_rwsem and the invalidate_lock, so could
> we convert the underlying blocks to unwritten here instead of writing
> them all out? Once we reduce i_size, writeback will stop at EOF, right?
>
> D:
> |<- extszie ->|
> zzzzzzzzz
> ZUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
> ^ ^ ^
> new EOF | (old EOF)
> folio boundary
>

Yeah.

Thanks,
Yi.

>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (IS_DAX(inode))
>>>>>> - return dax_truncate_page(inode, pos, blocksize, did_zero,
>>>>>> - &xfs_dax_write_iomap_ops);
>>>>>> - return iomap_truncate_page(inode, pos, blocksize, did_zero,
>>>>>> - &xfs_buffered_write_iomap_ops);
>>>>>> + error = dax_truncate_page(inode, pos, blocksize, did_zero,
>>>>>> + &xfs_dax_write_iomap_ops);
>>>>>> + else
>>>>>> + error = iomap_truncate_page(inode, pos, blocksize, did_zero,
>>>>>> + &xfs_buffered_write_iomap_ops);
>>>>>> + if (error)
>>>>>> + return error;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>> + * Write back path won't write dirty blocks post EOF folio,
>>>>>> + * flush the entire zeroed range before updating the inode
>>>>>> + * size.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + return filemap_write_and_wait_range(inode->i_mapping, pos,
>>>>>> + roundup_64(pos, blocksize));
>>>>>
>>>>> ...but what is the purpose of the second filemap_write_and_wait_range
>>>>> call? Is that to flush the bytes between new and old EOF to disk before
>>>>> truncate_setsize invalidates the (zeroed) pagecache?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The second filemap_write_and_wait_range() call is used to make sure that
>>>> the zeroed data be flushed to disk before we updating i_size. If we don't
>>>> add this one, once the i_size is been changed, the zeroed data which
>>>> beyond the new EOF folio(block) couldn't be write back, because
>>>> iomap_writepage_map()->iomap_writepage_handle_eof() skip that range, so
>>>> the stale data problem is still there.
>>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>> before zeroing:
>>>> |<- extszie ->|
>>>> wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (pagecache)
>>>> ...WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW (disk)
>>>> ^ ^
>>>> new EOF EOF (where 'w' means the pagecache contains data)
>>>>
>>>> then iomap_truncate_page() zeroing out the pagecache:
>>>>
>>>> |<- extszie ->|
>>>> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (pagecache)
>>>> WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW (disk)
>>>> ^ ^
>>>> new EOF EOF
>>>>
>>>> then update i_size, sync and drop cache:
>>>>
>>>> |<- extszie ->|
>>>> ZWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW (disk)
>>>> ^
>>>> EOF
>>>
>>> <nod> Ok, so this second call to filemap_write_and_wait_range flushes
>>> the newly written pagecache to disk. If it doesn't work to
>>> force-convert the tail fsblocks of the rtextent to unwritten status,
>>> then I suppose this is necessary if @blocksize != mp->m_sb.blocksize.
>>>
>>> --D
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Yi.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
>>>>>> index 66f8c47642e8..baeeddf4a6bb 100644
>>>>>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
>>>>>> @@ -845,16 +845,6 @@ xfs_setattr_size(
>>>>>> error = xfs_zero_range(ip, oldsize, newsize - oldsize,
>>>>>> &did_zeroing);
>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>> - /*
>>>>>> - * iomap won't detect a dirty page over an unwritten block (or a
>>>>>> - * cow block over a hole) and subsequently skips zeroing the
>>>>>> - * newly post-EOF portion of the page. Flush the new EOF to
>>>>>> - * convert the block before the pagecache truncate.
>>>>>> - */
>>>>>> - error = filemap_write_and_wait_range(inode->i_mapping, newsize,
>>>>>> - newsize);
>>>>>> - if (error)
>>>>>> - return error;
>>>>>> error = xfs_truncate_page(ip, newsize, &did_zeroing);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 2.39.2
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>

Next message: Simon Horman: "Re: [PATCH net] net: ti: icssg_prueth: Fix NULL pointer dereference in prueth_probe()"
Previous message: Christian Brauner: "Re: [PATCH RFC] fhandle: expose u64 mount id to name_to_handle_at(2)"
In reply to: Darrick J. Wong: "Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] xfs: correct the zeroing truncate range"
Next in thread: Dave Chinner: "Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] xfs: correct the zeroing truncate range"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]