From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext4 regression in v5.9-rc2 from e7bfb5c9bb3d on ro fs with overlapped bitmaps
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 18:19:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201005161941.GF4225@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201005101641.GA516771@localhost>
On Mon 05-10-20 03:16:41, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:46:01AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 05-10-20 01:14:54, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > Ran into an ext4 regression when testing upgrades to 5.9-rc kernels:
> > >
> > > Commit e7bfb5c9bb3d ("ext4: handle add_system_zone() failure in
> > > ext4_setup_system_zone()") breaks mounting of read-only ext4 filesystems
> > > with intentionally overlapping bitmap blocks.
> > >
> > > On an always-read-only filesystem explicitly marked with
> > > EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_SHARED_BLOCKS, prior to that commit, it's safe to
> > > point all the block and inode bitmaps to a single block of all 1s,
> > > because a read-only filesystem will never allocate or free any blocks or
> > > inodes.
> > > However, after that commit, the block validity check rejects such
> > > filesystems with -EUCLEAN and "failed to initialize system zone (-117)".
> > > This causes systems that previously worked correctly to fail when
> > > upgrading to v5.9-rc2 or later.
> > >
> > > This was obviously a bugfix, and I'm not suggesting that it should be
> > > reverted; it looks like this effectively worked by accident before,
> > > because the block_validity check wasn't fully functional. However, this
> > > does break real systems, and I'd like to get some kind of regression fix
> > > in before 5.9 final if possible. I think it would suffice to make
> > > block_validity default to false if and only if
> > > EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_SHARED_BLOCKS is set.
> > >
> > > Does that seem like a reasonable fix?
> >
> > Well, but EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_SHARED_BLOCKS is your internal feature
> > that's not present in current upstream kernel AFAICS.
>
> It isn't "my" feature; the value for
> EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_SHARED_BLOCKS is defined in the headers in the
> e2fsprogs tree. The kernel currently does absolutely nothing with it,
> nor did it previously need to; it's just an RO_COMPAT feature which
> ensures that the kernel can only mount the filesystem read-only. The
> point is that an always-read-only filesystem will never change the block
> or inode bitmaps, so ensuring they don't overlap is unnecessary (and
> harmful).
Ah, I see. I missed EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_SHARED_BLOCKS is actually
defined in e2fsprogs. Then what you suggests makes sense I guess and it's
good the headers are synced up again...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-05 16:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAHk-=wj-H5BYCU_kKiOK=B9sN3BtRzL4pnne2AJPyf54nQ+d=w@mail.gmail.com>
2020-10-05 8:14 ` ext4 regression in v5.9-rc2 from e7bfb5c9bb3d on ro fs with overlapped bitmaps Josh Triplett
2020-10-05 9:46 ` Jan Kara
2020-10-05 10:16 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-05 16:19 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2020-10-05 16:20 ` Jan Kara
2020-10-05 17:36 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-10-06 0:04 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-10-06 0:32 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-06 2:51 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-10-06 3:18 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-10-06 5:03 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-06 6:03 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-06 13:35 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-10-07 8:03 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-07 14:32 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-10-07 20:14 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-08 2:10 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-10-08 17:54 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-10-08 22:38 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-09 2:54 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-10-09 19:08 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-08 22:22 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-09 14:37 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-10-09 20:30 ` Josh Triplett
2021-01-10 18:41 ` Malicious fs images was " Pavel Machek
2021-01-11 18:51 ` Darrick J. Wong
2021-01-11 19:39 ` Eric Biggers
2021-01-12 21:43 ` Theodore Ts'o
2021-01-12 22:28 ` Pavel Machek
2021-01-13 5:09 ` Theodore Ts'o
2020-10-08 2:57 ` Andreas Dilger
2020-10-08 19:12 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-08 19:25 ` Andreas Dilger
2020-10-08 22:28 ` Josh Triplett
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201005161941.GF4225@quack2.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=jack@suse.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).