Re: [PATCH 2/6] xfs: verify extent size hint is valid in inode verifier
From: Brian Foster <hidden>
Date: 2018-08-20 19:15:33
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 08:36:26AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:27:42AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:quoted
On 8/20/18 10:06 AM, Brian Foster wrote:quoted
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:43:46AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:quoted
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:39:53PM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:quoted
On 6/4/18 11:24 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:quoted
From: Dave Chinner <redacted> There are rules for vald extent size hints. We enforce them when applications set them, but fuzzers violate those rules and that screws us over. This results in alignment assertion failures when setting up allocations such as this in direct IO: XFS: Assertion failed: ap->length, file: fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c, line: 3432 .... Call Trace: xfs_bmap_btalloc+0x415/0x910 xfs_bmapi_write+0x71c/0x12e0 xfs_iomap_write_direct+0x2a9/0x420 xfs_file_iomap_begin+0x4dc/0xa70 iomap_apply+0x43/0x100 iomap_file_buffered_write+0x62/0x90 xfs_file_buffered_aio_write+0xba/0x300 __vfs_write+0xd5/0x150 vfs_write+0xb6/0x180 ksys_write+0x45/0xa0 do_syscall_64+0x5a/0x180 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe And from xfs_db: core.extsize = 10380288 Which is not an integer multiple of the block size, and so violates Rule #7 for setting extent size hints. Validate extent size hint rules in the inode verifier to catch this.So, I think that if I do: # mkfs.xfs -f -m crc=0 $TEST_DEV # ./check xfs/229 # ./check xfs/229 I trip the verifier, because I end up with freed inodes on disk with an extent size hints but zeroed flags. xfs_ifree sets di_flags = 0 but doesn't clear di_extsize; xfs_inode_validate_extsize says if extsize !=0 and the hint flag is set, it fails Anyone else see this?Yeah, I think I just hit this on the TEST_DEV in xfs/242. git blame says I lifted the code from the scrub code, and I probably wrote the code having read the ioctl code (which clears the extsize field if the iflag isn't set).quoted
(crc=0 needed because that causes us to actually reread the inode chunks in xfs_iread vs. /* shortcut IO on inode allocation if possible */Hmmm, so a v5 fs mounted with ikeep will also read an inode chunk when creating an inode. It looks like we do that (instead of zeroing the incore inode and setting a random i_generation) to preserve the existing generation number? In any case, it's pretty clear that kernels have been writing out freed inode cores with di_mode == 0, di_flags == 0, and di_extsize == (some number) so we clearly can't have that in the verifier. It looks like we only examine di_extsize if either EXTSZ flag are set, so it's not causing incorrect behavior. Maybe it can be a preening fix in scrub/repair.I just stumbled on this problem with xfs/229 that Eric reported. I'm confused by the comment above regarding this not causing incorrect behavior.I think Darrick meant that having a nonzero extent size hint on disk won't cause incorrect behavior because "we only examine di_extsize if either EXTSZ flag are set"Yeah, he probably did. :)
Got it, thanks.
I think Brian's suggestion of if (i_mode != 0 && !hint && extsize != 0) barf_error(); sounds reasonable (having not tested that at all).
I'll run it through xfstests and get it posted if nothing else fails. BTW, do we have a similar issue with the cowextsize hint (assuming v5+ikeep)? It looks like it's cleared similarly in xfs_ialloc(), but I'm not sure if it's cleared somewhere else on free... Brian
--Dquoted
-Eric