* [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive()
@ 2019-09-06 10:54 ` Chao Yu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-06 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jaegeuk; +Cc: linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel, chao, Chao Yu
If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache,
so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call
path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid
target block.
- gc_data_segment
- is_alive
- datablock_addr
- offset_in_addr
Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability")
Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
---
fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c
index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c
@@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
if (IS_ERR(page))
return page;
+ /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */
+ f2fs_update_inode(inode, page);
+
if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) {
/* in order to handle error case */
get_page(page);
--
2.18.0.rc1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() @ 2019-09-06 10:54 ` Chao Yu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-06 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: jaegeuk; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid target block. - gc_data_segment - is_alive - datablock_addr - offset_in_addr Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> --- fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, if (IS_ERR(page)) return page; + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { /* in order to handle error case */ get_page(page); -- 2.18.0.rc1 _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() 2019-09-06 10:54 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu @ 2019-09-06 23:48 ` Jaegeuk Kim -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-06 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel, chao On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: > If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, > so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call > path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid > target block. If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? > > - gc_data_segment > - is_alive > - datablock_addr > - offset_in_addr > > Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> > --- > fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 > --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c > +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, > if (IS_ERR(page)) > return page; > > + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ > + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); > + > if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { > /* in order to handle error case */ > get_page(page); > -- > 2.18.0.rc1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() @ 2019-09-06 23:48 ` Jaegeuk Kim 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-06 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: > If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, > so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call > path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid > target block. If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? > > - gc_data_segment > - is_alive > - datablock_addr > - offset_in_addr > > Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> > --- > fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 > --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c > +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, > if (IS_ERR(page)) > return page; > > + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ > + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); > + > if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { > /* in order to handle error case */ > get_page(page); > -- > 2.18.0.rc1 _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() 2019-09-06 23:48 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-07 1:23 ` Chao Yu -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-07 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jaegeuk Kim, Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: >> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, >> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call >> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid >> target block. > > If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? is_alive() { ... node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); ... } datablock_addr() { ... base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. ... } Thanks, > >> >> - gc_data_segment >> - is_alive >> - datablock_addr >> - offset_in_addr >> >> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") >> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >> --- >> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 >> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, >> if (IS_ERR(page)) >> return page; >> >> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ >> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); >> + >> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { >> /* in order to handle error case */ >> get_page(page); >> -- >> 2.18.0.rc1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() @ 2019-09-07 1:23 ` Chao Yu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-07 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jaegeuk Kim, Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: >> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, >> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call >> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid >> target block. > > If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? is_alive() { ... node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); ... } datablock_addr() { ... base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. ... } Thanks, > >> >> - gc_data_segment >> - is_alive >> - datablock_addr >> - offset_in_addr >> >> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") >> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >> --- >> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 >> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, >> if (IS_ERR(page)) >> return page; >> >> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ >> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); >> + >> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { >> /* in order to handle error case */ >> get_page(page); >> -- >> 2.18.0.rc1 _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() 2019-09-07 1:23 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu @ 2019-09-09 7:44 ` Jaegeuk Kim -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-09 7:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chao Yu; +Cc: Chao Yu, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: > >> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, > >> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call > >> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid > >> target block. > > > > If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block really valid to move in GC? > > is_alive() > { > ... > node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? if (sum->version != dni->version) { f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", __func__); set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); } > > source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); } > ... > } > > datablock_addr() > { > ... > base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to > accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. > ... > } > > Thanks, > > > > >> > >> - gc_data_segment > >> - is_alive > >> - datablock_addr > >> - offset_in_addr > >> > >> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") > >> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> > >> --- > >> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 > >> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, > >> if (IS_ERR(page)) > >> return page; > >> > >> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ > >> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); > >> + > >> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { > >> /* in order to handle error case */ > >> get_page(page); > >> -- > >> 2.18.0.rc1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() @ 2019-09-09 7:44 ` Jaegeuk Kim 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-09 7:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: > >> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, > >> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call > >> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid > >> target block. > > > > If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block really valid to move in GC? > > is_alive() > { > ... > node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? if (sum->version != dni->version) { f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", __func__); set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); } > > source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); } > ... > } > > datablock_addr() > { > ... > base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to > accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. > ... > } > > Thanks, > > > > >> > >> - gc_data_segment > >> - is_alive > >> - datablock_addr > >> - offset_in_addr > >> > >> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") > >> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> > >> --- > >> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 > >> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, > >> if (IS_ERR(page)) > >> return page; > >> > >> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ > >> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); > >> + > >> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { > >> /* in order to handle error case */ > >> get_page(page); > >> -- > >> 2.18.0.rc1 _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() 2019-09-09 7:44 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-09 7:58 ` Chao Yu -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-09 7:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jaegeuk Kim, Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: >>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, >>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call >>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid >>>> target block. >>> >>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? > > Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block > really valid to move in GC? I guess it's valid, let double check that. > >> >> is_alive() >> { >> ... >> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page > > Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? > > if (sum->version != dni->version) { > f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", > __func__); > set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > } > >> >> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); > > So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? > > if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { > f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", > f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); > } Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with mismatched node version.". With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. Thanks, > >> ... >> } >> >> datablock_addr() >> { >> ... >> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to >> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. >> ... >> } >> >> Thanks, >> >>> >>>> >>>> - gc_data_segment >>>> - is_alive >>>> - datablock_addr >>>> - offset_in_addr >>>> >>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") >>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >>>> --- >>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, >>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) >>>> return page; >>>> >>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ >>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); >>>> + >>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { >>>> /* in order to handle error case */ >>>> get_page(page); >>>> -- >>>> 2.18.0.rc1 > . > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() @ 2019-09-09 7:58 ` Chao Yu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-09 7:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jaegeuk Kim, Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: >>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, >>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call >>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid >>>> target block. >>> >>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? > > Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block > really valid to move in GC? I guess it's valid, let double check that. > >> >> is_alive() >> { >> ... >> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page > > Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? > > if (sum->version != dni->version) { > f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", > __func__); > set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > } > >> >> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); > > So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? > > if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { > f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", > f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); > } Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with mismatched node version.". With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. Thanks, > >> ... >> } >> >> datablock_addr() >> { >> ... >> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to >> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. >> ... >> } >> >> Thanks, >> >>> >>>> >>>> - gc_data_segment >>>> - is_alive >>>> - datablock_addr >>>> - offset_in_addr >>>> >>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") >>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >>>> --- >>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, >>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) >>>> return page; >>>> >>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ >>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); >>>> + >>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { >>>> /* in order to handle error case */ >>>> get_page(page); >>>> -- >>>> 2.18.0.rc1 > . > _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() 2019-09-09 7:58 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu @ 2019-09-09 8:16 ` Chao Yu -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-09 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jaegeuk Kim, Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel On 2019/9/9 15:58, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >> On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: >>> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, >>>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call >>>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid >>>>> target block. >>>> >>>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? >> >> Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block >> really valid to move in GC? > > I guess it's valid, let double check that. We can see inode page: - f2fs_create - f2fs_add_link - f2fs_add_dentry - f2fs_init_inode_metadata - f2fs_add_inline_entry - ipage = f2fs_new_inode_page - f2fs_put_page(ipage) <---- after this > >> >>> >>> is_alive() >>> { >>> ... >>> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page >> >> Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? >> >> if (sum->version != dni->version) { >> f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", >> __func__); >> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); >> } The version of summary and dni are all zero. summary nid: 613, ofs: 111, ver: 0 blkaddr 2436 (blkaddr in node 0) expect: seg 10, ofs_in_seg: 54 real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 ofs: 54, 0 node info ino:613, nid:613, nofs:0 ofs_in_addr: 0 Thanks, >> >>> >>> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); >> >> So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? >> >> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { >> f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", >> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); >> } > > Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with mismatched > node version.". > > With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. > > Thanks, > >> >>> ... >>> } >>> >>> datablock_addr() >>> { >>> ... >>> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to >>> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. >>> ... >>> } >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - gc_data_segment >>>>> - is_alive >>>>> - datablock_addr >>>>> - offset_in_addr >>>>> >>>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") >>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 >>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, >>>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) >>>>> return page; >>>>> >>>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ >>>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); >>>>> + >>>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { >>>>> /* in order to handle error case */ >>>>> get_page(page); >>>>> -- >>>>> 2.18.0.rc1 >> . >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() @ 2019-09-09 8:16 ` Chao Yu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-09 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jaegeuk Kim, Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel On 2019/9/9 15:58, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >> On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: >>> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, >>>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call >>>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid >>>>> target block. >>>> >>>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? >> >> Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block >> really valid to move in GC? > > I guess it's valid, let double check that. We can see inode page: - f2fs_create - f2fs_add_link - f2fs_add_dentry - f2fs_init_inode_metadata - f2fs_add_inline_entry - ipage = f2fs_new_inode_page - f2fs_put_page(ipage) <---- after this > >> >>> >>> is_alive() >>> { >>> ... >>> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page >> >> Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? >> >> if (sum->version != dni->version) { >> f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", >> __func__); >> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); >> } The version of summary and dni are all zero. summary nid: 613, ofs: 111, ver: 0 blkaddr 2436 (blkaddr in node 0) expect: seg 10, ofs_in_seg: 54 real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 ofs: 54, 0 node info ino:613, nid:613, nofs:0 ofs_in_addr: 0 Thanks, >> >>> >>> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); >> >> So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? >> >> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { >> f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", >> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); >> } > > Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with mismatched > node version.". > > With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. > > Thanks, > >> >>> ... >>> } >>> >>> datablock_addr() >>> { >>> ... >>> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to >>> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. >>> ... >>> } >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - gc_data_segment >>>>> - is_alive >>>>> - datablock_addr >>>>> - offset_in_addr >>>>> >>>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") >>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 >>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, >>>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) >>>>> return page; >>>>> >>>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ >>>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); >>>>> + >>>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { >>>>> /* in order to handle error case */ >>>>> get_page(page); >>>>> -- >>>>> 2.18.0.rc1 >> . >> _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() 2019-09-09 8:16 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu @ 2019-09-09 8:37 ` Jaegeuk Kim -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-09 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chao Yu; +Cc: Chao Yu, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2019/9/9 15:58, Chao Yu wrote: > > On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >> On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: > >>> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, > >>>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call > >>>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid > >>>>> target block. > >>>> > >>>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? > >> > >> Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block > >> really valid to move in GC? > > > > I guess it's valid, let double check that. > > We can see inode page: > > - f2fs_create > - f2fs_add_link > - f2fs_add_dentry > - f2fs_init_inode_metadata > - f2fs_add_inline_entry > - ipage = f2fs_new_inode_page > - f2fs_put_page(ipage) <---- after this Can you print out how many block was assigned to this inode? > > > > >> > >>> > >>> is_alive() > >>> { > >>> ... > >>> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page > >> > >> Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? > >> > >> if (sum->version != dni->version) { > >> f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", > >> __func__); > >> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > >> } > > The version of summary and dni are all zero. Then, this node was allocated and removed without being flushed. > > summary nid: 613, ofs: 111, ver: 0 > blkaddr 2436 (blkaddr in node 0) > expect: seg 10, ofs_in_seg: 54 > real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 > ofs: 54, 0 > node info ino:613, nid:613, nofs:0 > ofs_in_addr: 0 > > Thanks, > > >> > >>> > >>> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); > >> > >> So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? > >> > >> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { > >> f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", > >> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); > >> } > > > > Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with mismatched > > node version.". Was this block moved as valid? In either way, is_alive() returns false, no? How about checking i_blocks to detect the page is initialized in is_alive()? > > > > With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > >>> ... > >>> } > >>> > >>> datablock_addr() > >>> { > >>> ... > >>> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to > >>> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. > >>> ... > >>> } > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> - gc_data_segment > >>>>> - is_alive > >>>>> - datablock_addr > >>>>> - offset_in_addr > >>>>> > >>>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ > >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 > >>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, > >>>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) > >>>>> return page; > >>>>> > >>>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ > >>>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); > >>>>> + > >>>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { > >>>>> /* in order to handle error case */ > >>>>> get_page(page); > >>>>> -- > >>>>> 2.18.0.rc1 > >> . > >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() @ 2019-09-09 8:37 ` Jaegeuk Kim 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-09 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2019/9/9 15:58, Chao Yu wrote: > > On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >> On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: > >>> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, > >>>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call > >>>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid > >>>>> target block. > >>>> > >>>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? > >> > >> Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block > >> really valid to move in GC? > > > > I guess it's valid, let double check that. > > We can see inode page: > > - f2fs_create > - f2fs_add_link > - f2fs_add_dentry > - f2fs_init_inode_metadata > - f2fs_add_inline_entry > - ipage = f2fs_new_inode_page > - f2fs_put_page(ipage) <---- after this Can you print out how many block was assigned to this inode? > > > > >> > >>> > >>> is_alive() > >>> { > >>> ... > >>> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page > >> > >> Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? > >> > >> if (sum->version != dni->version) { > >> f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", > >> __func__); > >> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > >> } > > The version of summary and dni are all zero. Then, this node was allocated and removed without being flushed. > > summary nid: 613, ofs: 111, ver: 0 > blkaddr 2436 (blkaddr in node 0) > expect: seg 10, ofs_in_seg: 54 > real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 > ofs: 54, 0 > node info ino:613, nid:613, nofs:0 > ofs_in_addr: 0 > > Thanks, > > >> > >>> > >>> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); > >> > >> So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? > >> > >> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { > >> f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", > >> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); > >> } > > > > Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with mismatched > > node version.". Was this block moved as valid? In either way, is_alive() returns false, no? How about checking i_blocks to detect the page is initialized in is_alive()? > > > > With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > >>> ... > >>> } > >>> > >>> datablock_addr() > >>> { > >>> ... > >>> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to > >>> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. > >>> ... > >>> } > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> - gc_data_segment > >>>>> - is_alive > >>>>> - datablock_addr > >>>>> - offset_in_addr > >>>>> > >>>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ > >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 > >>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, > >>>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) > >>>>> return page; > >>>>> > >>>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ > >>>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); > >>>>> + > >>>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { > >>>>> /* in order to handle error case */ > >>>>> get_page(page); > >>>>> -- > >>>>> 2.18.0.rc1 > >> . > >> _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() 2019-09-09 8:37 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-09 9:18 ` Chao Yu -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-09 9:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: Chao Yu, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel On 2019/9/9 16:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2019/9/9 15:58, Chao Yu wrote: >>> On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>> On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, >>>>>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call >>>>>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid >>>>>>> target block. >>>>>> >>>>>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? >>>> >>>> Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block >>>> really valid to move in GC? >>> >>> I guess it's valid, let double check that. >> >> We can see inode page: >> >> - f2fs_create >> - f2fs_add_link >> - f2fs_add_dentry >> - f2fs_init_inode_metadata >> - f2fs_add_inline_entry >> - ipage = f2fs_new_inode_page >> - f2fs_put_page(ipage) <---- after this > > Can you print out how many block was assigned to this inode? Add log like this: if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { if (is_inode) { for (i = 0; i < 923 - 50; i++) { __le32 *base = blkaddr_in_node(node); unsigned ofs = offset_in_addr(inode); printk("i:%u, addr:%x\n", i, le32_to_cpu(*(base + i))); } printk("i_inline: %u\n", inode->i_inline); } It shows: ... i:10, addr:e66a ... i:46, addr:e66c i:47, addr:e66d i:48, addr:e66e i:49, addr:e66f i:50, addr:e670 i:51, addr:e671 i:52, addr:e672 i:53, addr:e673 i:54, addr:e674 i:55, addr:e675 i:56, addr:e676 ... i:140, addr:2c35 <--- we want to migrate this block, however, without correct .i_inline and .i_extra_isize value, we can just find i_addr[i:140-6] = NULL_ADDR i:141, addr:2c38 i:142, addr:2c39 i:143, addr:2c3b i:144, addr:2c3e i:145, addr:2c40 i:146, addr:2c44 i:147, addr:2c48 i:148, addr:2c4a i:149, addr:2c4c i:150, addr:2c4f i:151, addr:2c59 i:152, addr:2c5d ... i:188, addr:e677 i:189, addr:e678 i:190, addr:e679 i:191, addr:e67a i:192, addr:e67b i:193, addr:e67c i:194, addr:e67d i:195, addr:e67e i:196, addr:e67f i:197, addr:e680 i:198, addr:ffffffff i:199, addr:ffffffff i:200, addr:ffffffff i:201, addr:ffffffff i:202, addr:ffffffff i:203, addr:ffffffff i:204, addr:ffffffff i:205, addr:ffffffff i:206, addr:ffffffff i:207, addr:ffffffff i:208, addr:ffffffff i:209, addr:ffffffff i:210, addr:ffffffff i:211, addr:ffffffff i:212, addr:ffffffff i:213, addr:ffffffff i:214, addr:ffffffff i:215, addr:ffffffff i:216, addr:ffffffff i:217, addr:ffffffff i:218, addr:ffffffff i:219, addr:ffffffff i:220, addr:ffffffff i:221, addr:ffffffff i:222, addr:ffffffff i:223, addr:ffffffff i:224, addr:ffffffff i:225, addr:ffffffff i:226, addr:ffffffff i:227, addr:ffffffff i:228, addr:ffffffff i:229, addr:ffffffff i:230, addr:ffffffff i:231, addr:ffffffff i:232, addr:ffffffff i:233, addr:ffffffff i:234, addr:b032 i:235, addr:b033 i:236, addr:b034 i:237, addr:b035 i:238, addr:b036 i:239, addr:b038 ... i:283, addr:e681 ... i_inline: 0 F2FS-fs (zram1): summary nid: 360, ofs: 134, ver: 0 F2FS-fs (zram1): blkaddr 2c35 (blkaddr in node 0) <-blkaddr in node is NULL_ADDR F2FS-fs (zram1): expect: seg 14, ofs_in_seg: 53 F2FS-fs (zram1): real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs: 53, 0 F2FS-fs (zram1): node info ino:360, nid:360, nofs:0 F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs_in_addr: 0 F2FS-fs (zram1): end ======== > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> is_alive() >>>>> { >>>>> ... >>>>> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page >>>> >>>> Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? >>>> >>>> if (sum->version != dni->version) { >>>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", >>>> __func__); >>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); >>>> } >> >> The version of summary and dni are all zero. > > Then, this node was allocated and removed without being flushed. > >> >> summary nid: 613, ofs: 111, ver: 0 >> blkaddr 2436 (blkaddr in node 0) >> expect: seg 10, ofs_in_seg: 54 >> real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 >> ofs: 54, 0 >> node info ino:613, nid:613, nofs:0 >> ofs_in_addr: 0 >> >> Thanks, >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); >>>> >>>> So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? >>>> >>>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { >>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", >>>> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); >>>> } >>> >>> Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with mismatched >>> node version.". > > Was this block moved as valid? In either way, is_alive() returns false, no? > How about checking i_blocks to detect the page is initialized in is_alive()? > >>> >>> With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> datablock_addr() >>>>> { >>>>> ... >>>>> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to >>>>> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. >>>>> ... >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - gc_data_segment >>>>>>> - is_alive >>>>>>> - datablock_addr >>>>>>> - offset_in_addr >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, >>>>>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) >>>>>>> return page; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ >>>>>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { >>>>>>> /* in order to handle error case */ >>>>>>> get_page(page); >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 2.18.0.rc1 >>>> . >>>> > . > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() @ 2019-09-09 9:18 ` Chao Yu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-09 9:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel On 2019/9/9 16:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2019/9/9 15:58, Chao Yu wrote: >>> On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>> On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, >>>>>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call >>>>>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid >>>>>>> target block. >>>>>> >>>>>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? >>>> >>>> Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block >>>> really valid to move in GC? >>> >>> I guess it's valid, let double check that. >> >> We can see inode page: >> >> - f2fs_create >> - f2fs_add_link >> - f2fs_add_dentry >> - f2fs_init_inode_metadata >> - f2fs_add_inline_entry >> - ipage = f2fs_new_inode_page >> - f2fs_put_page(ipage) <---- after this > > Can you print out how many block was assigned to this inode? Add log like this: if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { if (is_inode) { for (i = 0; i < 923 - 50; i++) { __le32 *base = blkaddr_in_node(node); unsigned ofs = offset_in_addr(inode); printk("i:%u, addr:%x\n", i, le32_to_cpu(*(base + i))); } printk("i_inline: %u\n", inode->i_inline); } It shows: ... i:10, addr:e66a ... i:46, addr:e66c i:47, addr:e66d i:48, addr:e66e i:49, addr:e66f i:50, addr:e670 i:51, addr:e671 i:52, addr:e672 i:53, addr:e673 i:54, addr:e674 i:55, addr:e675 i:56, addr:e676 ... i:140, addr:2c35 <--- we want to migrate this block, however, without correct .i_inline and .i_extra_isize value, we can just find i_addr[i:140-6] = NULL_ADDR i:141, addr:2c38 i:142, addr:2c39 i:143, addr:2c3b i:144, addr:2c3e i:145, addr:2c40 i:146, addr:2c44 i:147, addr:2c48 i:148, addr:2c4a i:149, addr:2c4c i:150, addr:2c4f i:151, addr:2c59 i:152, addr:2c5d ... i:188, addr:e677 i:189, addr:e678 i:190, addr:e679 i:191, addr:e67a i:192, addr:e67b i:193, addr:e67c i:194, addr:e67d i:195, addr:e67e i:196, addr:e67f i:197, addr:e680 i:198, addr:ffffffff i:199, addr:ffffffff i:200, addr:ffffffff i:201, addr:ffffffff i:202, addr:ffffffff i:203, addr:ffffffff i:204, addr:ffffffff i:205, addr:ffffffff i:206, addr:ffffffff i:207, addr:ffffffff i:208, addr:ffffffff i:209, addr:ffffffff i:210, addr:ffffffff i:211, addr:ffffffff i:212, addr:ffffffff i:213, addr:ffffffff i:214, addr:ffffffff i:215, addr:ffffffff i:216, addr:ffffffff i:217, addr:ffffffff i:218, addr:ffffffff i:219, addr:ffffffff i:220, addr:ffffffff i:221, addr:ffffffff i:222, addr:ffffffff i:223, addr:ffffffff i:224, addr:ffffffff i:225, addr:ffffffff i:226, addr:ffffffff i:227, addr:ffffffff i:228, addr:ffffffff i:229, addr:ffffffff i:230, addr:ffffffff i:231, addr:ffffffff i:232, addr:ffffffff i:233, addr:ffffffff i:234, addr:b032 i:235, addr:b033 i:236, addr:b034 i:237, addr:b035 i:238, addr:b036 i:239, addr:b038 ... i:283, addr:e681 ... i_inline: 0 F2FS-fs (zram1): summary nid: 360, ofs: 134, ver: 0 F2FS-fs (zram1): blkaddr 2c35 (blkaddr in node 0) <-blkaddr in node is NULL_ADDR F2FS-fs (zram1): expect: seg 14, ofs_in_seg: 53 F2FS-fs (zram1): real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs: 53, 0 F2FS-fs (zram1): node info ino:360, nid:360, nofs:0 F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs_in_addr: 0 F2FS-fs (zram1): end ======== > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> is_alive() >>>>> { >>>>> ... >>>>> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page >>>> >>>> Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? >>>> >>>> if (sum->version != dni->version) { >>>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", >>>> __func__); >>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); >>>> } >> >> The version of summary and dni are all zero. > > Then, this node was allocated and removed without being flushed. > >> >> summary nid: 613, ofs: 111, ver: 0 >> blkaddr 2436 (blkaddr in node 0) >> expect: seg 10, ofs_in_seg: 54 >> real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 >> ofs: 54, 0 >> node info ino:613, nid:613, nofs:0 >> ofs_in_addr: 0 >> >> Thanks, >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); >>>> >>>> So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? >>>> >>>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { >>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", >>>> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); >>>> } >>> >>> Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with mismatched >>> node version.". > > Was this block moved as valid? In either way, is_alive() returns false, no? > How about checking i_blocks to detect the page is initialized in is_alive()? > >>> >>> With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> datablock_addr() >>>>> { >>>>> ... >>>>> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to >>>>> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. >>>>> ... >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - gc_data_segment >>>>>>> - is_alive >>>>>>> - datablock_addr >>>>>>> - offset_in_addr >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, >>>>>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) >>>>>>> return page; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ >>>>>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { >>>>>>> /* in order to handle error case */ >>>>>>> get_page(page); >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 2.18.0.rc1 >>>> . >>>> > . > _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() 2019-09-09 9:18 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu @ 2019-09-09 9:33 ` Jaegeuk Kim -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-09 9:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chao Yu; +Cc: Chao Yu, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2019/9/9 16:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: > >> On 2019/9/9 15:58, Chao Yu wrote: > >>> On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>> On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>>> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>>>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>>>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, > >>>>>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call > >>>>>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid > >>>>>>> target block. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? > >>>> > >>>> Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block > >>>> really valid to move in GC? > >>> > >>> I guess it's valid, let double check that. > >> > >> We can see inode page: > >> > >> - f2fs_create > >> - f2fs_add_link > >> - f2fs_add_dentry > >> - f2fs_init_inode_metadata > >> - f2fs_add_inline_entry > >> - ipage = f2fs_new_inode_page > >> - f2fs_put_page(ipage) <---- after this > > > > Can you print out how many block was assigned to this inode? > > Add log like this: > > if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { > if (is_inode) { > for (i = 0; i < 923 - 50; i++) { > __le32 *base = blkaddr_in_node(node); > unsigned ofs = offset_in_addr(inode); > > printk("i:%u, addr:%x\n", i, > le32_to_cpu(*(base + i))); > } > printk("i_inline: %u\n", inode->i_inline); > } > > It shows: > ... > i:10, addr:e66a > ... > i:46, addr:e66c > i:47, addr:e66d > i:48, addr:e66e > i:49, addr:e66f > i:50, addr:e670 > i:51, addr:e671 > i:52, addr:e672 > i:53, addr:e673 > i:54, addr:e674 > i:55, addr:e675 > i:56, addr:e676 > ... > i:140, addr:2c35 <--- we want to migrate this block, however, without correct > .i_inline and .i_extra_isize value, we can just find i_addr[i:140-6] = NULL_ADDR So, the theory is the block is indeed valid and the address was updated before write_inode()? > i:141, addr:2c38 > i:142, addr:2c39 > i:143, addr:2c3b > i:144, addr:2c3e > i:145, addr:2c40 > i:146, addr:2c44 > i:147, addr:2c48 > i:148, addr:2c4a > i:149, addr:2c4c > i:150, addr:2c4f > i:151, addr:2c59 > i:152, addr:2c5d > ... > i:188, addr:e677 > i:189, addr:e678 > i:190, addr:e679 > i:191, addr:e67a > i:192, addr:e67b > i:193, addr:e67c > i:194, addr:e67d > i:195, addr:e67e > i:196, addr:e67f > i:197, addr:e680 > i:198, addr:ffffffff > i:199, addr:ffffffff > i:200, addr:ffffffff > i:201, addr:ffffffff > i:202, addr:ffffffff > i:203, addr:ffffffff > i:204, addr:ffffffff > i:205, addr:ffffffff > i:206, addr:ffffffff > i:207, addr:ffffffff > i:208, addr:ffffffff > i:209, addr:ffffffff > i:210, addr:ffffffff > i:211, addr:ffffffff > i:212, addr:ffffffff > i:213, addr:ffffffff > i:214, addr:ffffffff > i:215, addr:ffffffff > i:216, addr:ffffffff > i:217, addr:ffffffff > i:218, addr:ffffffff > i:219, addr:ffffffff > i:220, addr:ffffffff > i:221, addr:ffffffff > i:222, addr:ffffffff > i:223, addr:ffffffff > i:224, addr:ffffffff > i:225, addr:ffffffff > i:226, addr:ffffffff > i:227, addr:ffffffff > i:228, addr:ffffffff > i:229, addr:ffffffff > i:230, addr:ffffffff > i:231, addr:ffffffff > i:232, addr:ffffffff > i:233, addr:ffffffff > i:234, addr:b032 > i:235, addr:b033 > i:236, addr:b034 > i:237, addr:b035 > i:238, addr:b036 > i:239, addr:b038 > ... > i:283, addr:e681 > ... > i_inline: 0 > > F2FS-fs (zram1): summary nid: 360, ofs: 134, ver: 0 > F2FS-fs (zram1): blkaddr 2c35 (blkaddr in node 0) <-blkaddr in node is NULL_ADDR > F2FS-fs (zram1): expect: seg 14, ofs_in_seg: 53 > F2FS-fs (zram1): real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 > F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs: 53, 0 > F2FS-fs (zram1): node info ino:360, nid:360, nofs:0 > F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs_in_addr: 0 > F2FS-fs (zram1): end ======== > > > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> is_alive() > >>>>> { > >>>>> ... > >>>>> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page > >>>> > >>>> Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? > >>>> > >>>> if (sum->version != dni->version) { > >>>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", > >>>> __func__); > >>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > >>>> } > >> > >> The version of summary and dni are all zero. > > > > Then, this node was allocated and removed without being flushed. > > > >> > >> summary nid: 613, ofs: 111, ver: 0 > >> blkaddr 2436 (blkaddr in node 0) > >> expect: seg 10, ofs_in_seg: 54 > >> real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 > >> ofs: 54, 0 > >> node info ino:613, nid:613, nofs:0 > >> ofs_in_addr: 0 > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); > >>>> > >>>> So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? > >>>> > >>>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { > >>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", > >>>> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); > >>>> } > >>> > >>> Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with mismatched > >>> node version.". > > > > Was this block moved as valid? In either way, is_alive() returns false, no? > > How about checking i_blocks to detect the page is initialized in is_alive()? > > > >>> > >>> With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> ... > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> datablock_addr() > >>>>> { > >>>>> ... > >>>>> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to > >>>>> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. > >>>>> ... > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - gc_data_segment > >>>>>>> - is_alive > >>>>>>> - datablock_addr > >>>>>>> - offset_in_addr > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ > >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 > >>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, > >>>>>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) > >>>>>>> return page; > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ > >>>>>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { > >>>>>>> /* in order to handle error case */ > >>>>>>> get_page(page); > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> 2.18.0.rc1 > >>>> . > >>>> > > . > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() @ 2019-09-09 9:33 ` Jaegeuk Kim 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-09 9:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2019/9/9 16:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: > >> On 2019/9/9 15:58, Chao Yu wrote: > >>> On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>> On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>>> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>>>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>>>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, > >>>>>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call > >>>>>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid > >>>>>>> target block. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? > >>>> > >>>> Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block > >>>> really valid to move in GC? > >>> > >>> I guess it's valid, let double check that. > >> > >> We can see inode page: > >> > >> - f2fs_create > >> - f2fs_add_link > >> - f2fs_add_dentry > >> - f2fs_init_inode_metadata > >> - f2fs_add_inline_entry > >> - ipage = f2fs_new_inode_page > >> - f2fs_put_page(ipage) <---- after this > > > > Can you print out how many block was assigned to this inode? > > Add log like this: > > if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { > if (is_inode) { > for (i = 0; i < 923 - 50; i++) { > __le32 *base = blkaddr_in_node(node); > unsigned ofs = offset_in_addr(inode); > > printk("i:%u, addr:%x\n", i, > le32_to_cpu(*(base + i))); > } > printk("i_inline: %u\n", inode->i_inline); > } > > It shows: > ... > i:10, addr:e66a > ... > i:46, addr:e66c > i:47, addr:e66d > i:48, addr:e66e > i:49, addr:e66f > i:50, addr:e670 > i:51, addr:e671 > i:52, addr:e672 > i:53, addr:e673 > i:54, addr:e674 > i:55, addr:e675 > i:56, addr:e676 > ... > i:140, addr:2c35 <--- we want to migrate this block, however, without correct > .i_inline and .i_extra_isize value, we can just find i_addr[i:140-6] = NULL_ADDR So, the theory is the block is indeed valid and the address was updated before write_inode()? > i:141, addr:2c38 > i:142, addr:2c39 > i:143, addr:2c3b > i:144, addr:2c3e > i:145, addr:2c40 > i:146, addr:2c44 > i:147, addr:2c48 > i:148, addr:2c4a > i:149, addr:2c4c > i:150, addr:2c4f > i:151, addr:2c59 > i:152, addr:2c5d > ... > i:188, addr:e677 > i:189, addr:e678 > i:190, addr:e679 > i:191, addr:e67a > i:192, addr:e67b > i:193, addr:e67c > i:194, addr:e67d > i:195, addr:e67e > i:196, addr:e67f > i:197, addr:e680 > i:198, addr:ffffffff > i:199, addr:ffffffff > i:200, addr:ffffffff > i:201, addr:ffffffff > i:202, addr:ffffffff > i:203, addr:ffffffff > i:204, addr:ffffffff > i:205, addr:ffffffff > i:206, addr:ffffffff > i:207, addr:ffffffff > i:208, addr:ffffffff > i:209, addr:ffffffff > i:210, addr:ffffffff > i:211, addr:ffffffff > i:212, addr:ffffffff > i:213, addr:ffffffff > i:214, addr:ffffffff > i:215, addr:ffffffff > i:216, addr:ffffffff > i:217, addr:ffffffff > i:218, addr:ffffffff > i:219, addr:ffffffff > i:220, addr:ffffffff > i:221, addr:ffffffff > i:222, addr:ffffffff > i:223, addr:ffffffff > i:224, addr:ffffffff > i:225, addr:ffffffff > i:226, addr:ffffffff > i:227, addr:ffffffff > i:228, addr:ffffffff > i:229, addr:ffffffff > i:230, addr:ffffffff > i:231, addr:ffffffff > i:232, addr:ffffffff > i:233, addr:ffffffff > i:234, addr:b032 > i:235, addr:b033 > i:236, addr:b034 > i:237, addr:b035 > i:238, addr:b036 > i:239, addr:b038 > ... > i:283, addr:e681 > ... > i_inline: 0 > > F2FS-fs (zram1): summary nid: 360, ofs: 134, ver: 0 > F2FS-fs (zram1): blkaddr 2c35 (blkaddr in node 0) <-blkaddr in node is NULL_ADDR > F2FS-fs (zram1): expect: seg 14, ofs_in_seg: 53 > F2FS-fs (zram1): real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 > F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs: 53, 0 > F2FS-fs (zram1): node info ino:360, nid:360, nofs:0 > F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs_in_addr: 0 > F2FS-fs (zram1): end ======== > > > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> is_alive() > >>>>> { > >>>>> ... > >>>>> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page > >>>> > >>>> Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? > >>>> > >>>> if (sum->version != dni->version) { > >>>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", > >>>> __func__); > >>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > >>>> } > >> > >> The version of summary and dni are all zero. > > > > Then, this node was allocated and removed without being flushed. > > > >> > >> summary nid: 613, ofs: 111, ver: 0 > >> blkaddr 2436 (blkaddr in node 0) > >> expect: seg 10, ofs_in_seg: 54 > >> real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 > >> ofs: 54, 0 > >> node info ino:613, nid:613, nofs:0 > >> ofs_in_addr: 0 > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); > >>>> > >>>> So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? > >>>> > >>>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { > >>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", > >>>> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); > >>>> } > >>> > >>> Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with mismatched > >>> node version.". > > > > Was this block moved as valid? In either way, is_alive() returns false, no? > > How about checking i_blocks to detect the page is initialized in is_alive()? > > > >>> > >>> With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> ... > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> datablock_addr() > >>>>> { > >>>>> ... > >>>>> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to > >>>>> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. > >>>>> ... > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - gc_data_segment > >>>>>>> - is_alive > >>>>>>> - datablock_addr > >>>>>>> - offset_in_addr > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ > >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 > >>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, > >>>>>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) > >>>>>>> return page; > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ > >>>>>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { > >>>>>>> /* in order to handle error case */ > >>>>>>> get_page(page); > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> 2.18.0.rc1 > >>>> . > >>>> > > . > > _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() 2019-09-09 9:33 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-09 11:05 ` Chao Yu -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-09 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: Chao Yu, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel On 2019/9/9 17:33, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2019/9/9 16:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: >>>> On 2019/9/9 15:58, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>> On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>> On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, >>>>>>>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call >>>>>>>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid >>>>>>>>> target block. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block >>>>>> really valid to move in GC? >>>>> >>>>> I guess it's valid, let double check that. >>>> >>>> We can see inode page: >>>> >>>> - f2fs_create >>>> - f2fs_add_link >>>> - f2fs_add_dentry >>>> - f2fs_init_inode_metadata >>>> - f2fs_add_inline_entry >>>> - ipage = f2fs_new_inode_page >>>> - f2fs_put_page(ipage) <---- after this >>> >>> Can you print out how many block was assigned to this inode? >> >> Add log like this: >> >> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { >> if (is_inode) { >> for (i = 0; i < 923 - 50; i++) { >> __le32 *base = blkaddr_in_node(node); >> unsigned ofs = offset_in_addr(inode); >> >> printk("i:%u, addr:%x\n", i, >> le32_to_cpu(*(base + i))); >> } >> printk("i_inline: %u\n", inode->i_inline); >> } >> >> It shows: >> ... >> i:10, addr:e66a >> ... >> i:46, addr:e66c >> i:47, addr:e66d >> i:48, addr:e66e >> i:49, addr:e66f >> i:50, addr:e670 >> i:51, addr:e671 >> i:52, addr:e672 >> i:53, addr:e673 >> i:54, addr:e674 >> i:55, addr:e675 >> i:56, addr:e676 >> ... >> i:140, addr:2c35 <--- we want to migrate this block, however, without correct >> .i_inline and .i_extra_isize value, we can just find i_addr[i:140-6] = NULL_ADDR > > So, the theory is the block is indeed valid and the address was updated before > write_inode()? I guess so. :) Thanks, > >> i:141, addr:2c38 >> i:142, addr:2c39 >> i:143, addr:2c3b >> i:144, addr:2c3e >> i:145, addr:2c40 >> i:146, addr:2c44 >> i:147, addr:2c48 >> i:148, addr:2c4a >> i:149, addr:2c4c >> i:150, addr:2c4f >> i:151, addr:2c59 >> i:152, addr:2c5d >> ... >> i:188, addr:e677 >> i:189, addr:e678 >> i:190, addr:e679 >> i:191, addr:e67a >> i:192, addr:e67b >> i:193, addr:e67c >> i:194, addr:e67d >> i:195, addr:e67e >> i:196, addr:e67f >> i:197, addr:e680 >> i:198, addr:ffffffff >> i:199, addr:ffffffff >> i:200, addr:ffffffff >> i:201, addr:ffffffff >> i:202, addr:ffffffff >> i:203, addr:ffffffff >> i:204, addr:ffffffff >> i:205, addr:ffffffff >> i:206, addr:ffffffff >> i:207, addr:ffffffff >> i:208, addr:ffffffff >> i:209, addr:ffffffff >> i:210, addr:ffffffff >> i:211, addr:ffffffff >> i:212, addr:ffffffff >> i:213, addr:ffffffff >> i:214, addr:ffffffff >> i:215, addr:ffffffff >> i:216, addr:ffffffff >> i:217, addr:ffffffff >> i:218, addr:ffffffff >> i:219, addr:ffffffff >> i:220, addr:ffffffff >> i:221, addr:ffffffff >> i:222, addr:ffffffff >> i:223, addr:ffffffff >> i:224, addr:ffffffff >> i:225, addr:ffffffff >> i:226, addr:ffffffff >> i:227, addr:ffffffff >> i:228, addr:ffffffff >> i:229, addr:ffffffff >> i:230, addr:ffffffff >> i:231, addr:ffffffff >> i:232, addr:ffffffff >> i:233, addr:ffffffff >> i:234, addr:b032 >> i:235, addr:b033 >> i:236, addr:b034 >> i:237, addr:b035 >> i:238, addr:b036 >> i:239, addr:b038 >> ... >> i:283, addr:e681 >> ... >> i_inline: 0 >> >> F2FS-fs (zram1): summary nid: 360, ofs: 134, ver: 0 >> F2FS-fs (zram1): blkaddr 2c35 (blkaddr in node 0) <-blkaddr in node is NULL_ADDR >> F2FS-fs (zram1): expect: seg 14, ofs_in_seg: 53 >> F2FS-fs (zram1): real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 >> F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs: 53, 0 >> F2FS-fs (zram1): node info ino:360, nid:360, nofs:0 >> F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs_in_addr: 0 >> F2FS-fs (zram1): end ======== >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> is_alive() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page >>>>>> >>>>>> Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? >>>>>> >>>>>> if (sum->version != dni->version) { >>>>>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", >>>>>> __func__); >>>>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); >>>>>> } >>>> >>>> The version of summary and dni are all zero. >>> >>> Then, this node was allocated and removed without being flushed. >>> >>>> >>>> summary nid: 613, ofs: 111, ver: 0 >>>> blkaddr 2436 (blkaddr in node 0) >>>> expect: seg 10, ofs_in_seg: 54 >>>> real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 >>>> ofs: 54, 0 >>>> node info ino:613, nid:613, nofs:0 >>>> ofs_in_addr: 0 >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); >>>>>> >>>>>> So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? >>>>>> >>>>>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { >>>>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", >>>>>> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); >>>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with mismatched >>>>> node version.". >>> >>> Was this block moved as valid? In either way, is_alive() returns false, no? >>> How about checking i_blocks to detect the page is initialized in is_alive()? >>> >>>>> >>>>> With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> datablock_addr() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to >>>>>>> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - gc_data_segment >>>>>>>>> - is_alive >>>>>>>>> - datablock_addr >>>>>>>>> - offset_in_addr >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ >>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 >>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, >>>>>>>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) >>>>>>>>> return page; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ >>>>>>>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { >>>>>>>>> /* in order to handle error case */ >>>>>>>>> get_page(page); >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> 2.18.0.rc1 >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>> . >>> > . > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() @ 2019-09-09 11:05 ` Chao Yu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-09 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel On 2019/9/9 17:33, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2019/9/9 16:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: >>>> On 2019/9/9 15:58, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>> On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>> On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, >>>>>>>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call >>>>>>>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid >>>>>>>>> target block. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block >>>>>> really valid to move in GC? >>>>> >>>>> I guess it's valid, let double check that. >>>> >>>> We can see inode page: >>>> >>>> - f2fs_create >>>> - f2fs_add_link >>>> - f2fs_add_dentry >>>> - f2fs_init_inode_metadata >>>> - f2fs_add_inline_entry >>>> - ipage = f2fs_new_inode_page >>>> - f2fs_put_page(ipage) <---- after this >>> >>> Can you print out how many block was assigned to this inode? >> >> Add log like this: >> >> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { >> if (is_inode) { >> for (i = 0; i < 923 - 50; i++) { >> __le32 *base = blkaddr_in_node(node); >> unsigned ofs = offset_in_addr(inode); >> >> printk("i:%u, addr:%x\n", i, >> le32_to_cpu(*(base + i))); >> } >> printk("i_inline: %u\n", inode->i_inline); >> } >> >> It shows: >> ... >> i:10, addr:e66a >> ... >> i:46, addr:e66c >> i:47, addr:e66d >> i:48, addr:e66e >> i:49, addr:e66f >> i:50, addr:e670 >> i:51, addr:e671 >> i:52, addr:e672 >> i:53, addr:e673 >> i:54, addr:e674 >> i:55, addr:e675 >> i:56, addr:e676 >> ... >> i:140, addr:2c35 <--- we want to migrate this block, however, without correct >> .i_inline and .i_extra_isize value, we can just find i_addr[i:140-6] = NULL_ADDR > > So, the theory is the block is indeed valid and the address was updated before > write_inode()? I guess so. :) Thanks, > >> i:141, addr:2c38 >> i:142, addr:2c39 >> i:143, addr:2c3b >> i:144, addr:2c3e >> i:145, addr:2c40 >> i:146, addr:2c44 >> i:147, addr:2c48 >> i:148, addr:2c4a >> i:149, addr:2c4c >> i:150, addr:2c4f >> i:151, addr:2c59 >> i:152, addr:2c5d >> ... >> i:188, addr:e677 >> i:189, addr:e678 >> i:190, addr:e679 >> i:191, addr:e67a >> i:192, addr:e67b >> i:193, addr:e67c >> i:194, addr:e67d >> i:195, addr:e67e >> i:196, addr:e67f >> i:197, addr:e680 >> i:198, addr:ffffffff >> i:199, addr:ffffffff >> i:200, addr:ffffffff >> i:201, addr:ffffffff >> i:202, addr:ffffffff >> i:203, addr:ffffffff >> i:204, addr:ffffffff >> i:205, addr:ffffffff >> i:206, addr:ffffffff >> i:207, addr:ffffffff >> i:208, addr:ffffffff >> i:209, addr:ffffffff >> i:210, addr:ffffffff >> i:211, addr:ffffffff >> i:212, addr:ffffffff >> i:213, addr:ffffffff >> i:214, addr:ffffffff >> i:215, addr:ffffffff >> i:216, addr:ffffffff >> i:217, addr:ffffffff >> i:218, addr:ffffffff >> i:219, addr:ffffffff >> i:220, addr:ffffffff >> i:221, addr:ffffffff >> i:222, addr:ffffffff >> i:223, addr:ffffffff >> i:224, addr:ffffffff >> i:225, addr:ffffffff >> i:226, addr:ffffffff >> i:227, addr:ffffffff >> i:228, addr:ffffffff >> i:229, addr:ffffffff >> i:230, addr:ffffffff >> i:231, addr:ffffffff >> i:232, addr:ffffffff >> i:233, addr:ffffffff >> i:234, addr:b032 >> i:235, addr:b033 >> i:236, addr:b034 >> i:237, addr:b035 >> i:238, addr:b036 >> i:239, addr:b038 >> ... >> i:283, addr:e681 >> ... >> i_inline: 0 >> >> F2FS-fs (zram1): summary nid: 360, ofs: 134, ver: 0 >> F2FS-fs (zram1): blkaddr 2c35 (blkaddr in node 0) <-blkaddr in node is NULL_ADDR >> F2FS-fs (zram1): expect: seg 14, ofs_in_seg: 53 >> F2FS-fs (zram1): real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 >> F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs: 53, 0 >> F2FS-fs (zram1): node info ino:360, nid:360, nofs:0 >> F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs_in_addr: 0 >> F2FS-fs (zram1): end ======== >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> is_alive() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page >>>>>> >>>>>> Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? >>>>>> >>>>>> if (sum->version != dni->version) { >>>>>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", >>>>>> __func__); >>>>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); >>>>>> } >>>> >>>> The version of summary and dni are all zero. >>> >>> Then, this node was allocated and removed without being flushed. >>> >>>> >>>> summary nid: 613, ofs: 111, ver: 0 >>>> blkaddr 2436 (blkaddr in node 0) >>>> expect: seg 10, ofs_in_seg: 54 >>>> real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 >>>> ofs: 54, 0 >>>> node info ino:613, nid:613, nofs:0 >>>> ofs_in_addr: 0 >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); >>>>>> >>>>>> So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? >>>>>> >>>>>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { >>>>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", >>>>>> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); >>>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with mismatched >>>>> node version.". >>> >>> Was this block moved as valid? In either way, is_alive() returns false, no? >>> How about checking i_blocks to detect the page is initialized in is_alive()? >>> >>>>> >>>>> With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> datablock_addr() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to >>>>>>> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - gc_data_segment >>>>>>>>> - is_alive >>>>>>>>> - datablock_addr >>>>>>>>> - offset_in_addr >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ >>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 >>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, >>>>>>>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) >>>>>>>>> return page; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ >>>>>>>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { >>>>>>>>> /* in order to handle error case */ >>>>>>>>> get_page(page); >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> 2.18.0.rc1 >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>> . >>> > . > _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() 2019-09-09 11:05 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu @ 2019-09-09 14:37 ` Jaegeuk Kim -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-09 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chao Yu; +Cc: Chao Yu, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2019/9/9 17:33, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: > >> On 2019/9/9 16:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>> On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>> On 2019/9/9 15:58, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>>> On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>>>> On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>>>>> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>>>>>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, > >>>>>>>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call > >>>>>>>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid > >>>>>>>>> target block. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block > >>>>>> really valid to move in GC? > >>>>> > >>>>> I guess it's valid, let double check that. > >>>> > >>>> We can see inode page: > >>>> > >>>> - f2fs_create > >>>> - f2fs_add_link > >>>> - f2fs_add_dentry > >>>> - f2fs_init_inode_metadata > >>>> - f2fs_add_inline_entry > >>>> - ipage = f2fs_new_inode_page > >>>> - f2fs_put_page(ipage) <---- after this > >>> > >>> Can you print out how many block was assigned to this inode? Can we update inode before finally putting ipage? > >> > >> Add log like this: > >> > >> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { > >> if (is_inode) { > >> for (i = 0; i < 923 - 50; i++) { > >> __le32 *base = blkaddr_in_node(node); > >> unsigned ofs = offset_in_addr(inode); > >> > >> printk("i:%u, addr:%x\n", i, > >> le32_to_cpu(*(base + i))); > >> } > >> printk("i_inline: %u\n", inode->i_inline); > >> } > >> > >> It shows: > >> ... > >> i:10, addr:e66a > >> ... > >> i:46, addr:e66c > >> i:47, addr:e66d > >> i:48, addr:e66e > >> i:49, addr:e66f > >> i:50, addr:e670 > >> i:51, addr:e671 > >> i:52, addr:e672 > >> i:53, addr:e673 > >> i:54, addr:e674 > >> i:55, addr:e675 > >> i:56, addr:e676 > >> ... > >> i:140, addr:2c35 <--- we want to migrate this block, however, without correct > >> .i_inline and .i_extra_isize value, we can just find i_addr[i:140-6] = NULL_ADDR > > > > So, the theory is the block is indeed valid and the address was updated before > > write_inode()? > > I guess so. :) > > Thanks, > > > > >> i:141, addr:2c38 > >> i:142, addr:2c39 > >> i:143, addr:2c3b > >> i:144, addr:2c3e > >> i:145, addr:2c40 > >> i:146, addr:2c44 > >> i:147, addr:2c48 > >> i:148, addr:2c4a > >> i:149, addr:2c4c > >> i:150, addr:2c4f > >> i:151, addr:2c59 > >> i:152, addr:2c5d > >> ... > >> i:188, addr:e677 > >> i:189, addr:e678 > >> i:190, addr:e679 > >> i:191, addr:e67a > >> i:192, addr:e67b > >> i:193, addr:e67c > >> i:194, addr:e67d > >> i:195, addr:e67e > >> i:196, addr:e67f > >> i:197, addr:e680 > >> i:198, addr:ffffffff > >> i:199, addr:ffffffff > >> i:200, addr:ffffffff > >> i:201, addr:ffffffff > >> i:202, addr:ffffffff > >> i:203, addr:ffffffff > >> i:204, addr:ffffffff > >> i:205, addr:ffffffff > >> i:206, addr:ffffffff > >> i:207, addr:ffffffff > >> i:208, addr:ffffffff > >> i:209, addr:ffffffff > >> i:210, addr:ffffffff > >> i:211, addr:ffffffff > >> i:212, addr:ffffffff > >> i:213, addr:ffffffff > >> i:214, addr:ffffffff > >> i:215, addr:ffffffff > >> i:216, addr:ffffffff > >> i:217, addr:ffffffff > >> i:218, addr:ffffffff > >> i:219, addr:ffffffff > >> i:220, addr:ffffffff > >> i:221, addr:ffffffff > >> i:222, addr:ffffffff > >> i:223, addr:ffffffff > >> i:224, addr:ffffffff > >> i:225, addr:ffffffff > >> i:226, addr:ffffffff > >> i:227, addr:ffffffff > >> i:228, addr:ffffffff > >> i:229, addr:ffffffff > >> i:230, addr:ffffffff > >> i:231, addr:ffffffff > >> i:232, addr:ffffffff > >> i:233, addr:ffffffff > >> i:234, addr:b032 > >> i:235, addr:b033 > >> i:236, addr:b034 > >> i:237, addr:b035 > >> i:238, addr:b036 > >> i:239, addr:b038 > >> ... > >> i:283, addr:e681 > >> ... > >> i_inline: 0 > >> > >> F2FS-fs (zram1): summary nid: 360, ofs: 134, ver: 0 > >> F2FS-fs (zram1): blkaddr 2c35 (blkaddr in node 0) <-blkaddr in node is NULL_ADDR > >> F2FS-fs (zram1): expect: seg 14, ofs_in_seg: 53 > >> F2FS-fs (zram1): real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 > >> F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs: 53, 0 > >> F2FS-fs (zram1): node info ino:360, nid:360, nofs:0 > >> F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs_in_addr: 0 > >> F2FS-fs (zram1): end ======== > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> is_alive() > >>>>>>> { > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> if (sum->version != dni->version) { > >>>>>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", > >>>>>> __func__); > >>>>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > >>>>>> } > >>>> > >>>> The version of summary and dni are all zero. > >>> > >>> Then, this node was allocated and removed without being flushed. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> summary nid: 613, ofs: 111, ver: 0 > >>>> blkaddr 2436 (blkaddr in node 0) > >>>> expect: seg 10, ofs_in_seg: 54 > >>>> real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 > >>>> ofs: 54, 0 > >>>> node info ino:613, nid:613, nofs:0 > >>>> ofs_in_addr: 0 > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { > >>>>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", > >>>>>> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); > >>>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with mismatched > >>>>> node version.". > >>> > >>> Was this block moved as valid? In either way, is_alive() returns false, no? > >>> How about checking i_blocks to detect the page is initialized in is_alive()? > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> } > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> datablock_addr() > >>>>>>> { > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to > >>>>>>> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> } > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - gc_data_segment > >>>>>>>>> - is_alive > >>>>>>>>> - datablock_addr > >>>>>>>>> - offset_in_addr > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") > >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> > >>>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ > >>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>>>>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 > >>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>>>>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, > >>>>>>>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) > >>>>>>>>> return page; > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ > >>>>>>>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); > >>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { > >>>>>>>>> /* in order to handle error case */ > >>>>>>>>> get_page(page); > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> 2.18.0.rc1 > >>>>>> . > >>>>>> > >>> . > >>> > > . > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() @ 2019-09-09 14:37 ` Jaegeuk Kim 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-09 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2019/9/9 17:33, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: > >> On 2019/9/9 16:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>> On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>> On 2019/9/9 15:58, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>>> On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>>>> On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>>>>> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>>>>>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, > >>>>>>>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call > >>>>>>>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid > >>>>>>>>> target block. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block > >>>>>> really valid to move in GC? > >>>>> > >>>>> I guess it's valid, let double check that. > >>>> > >>>> We can see inode page: > >>>> > >>>> - f2fs_create > >>>> - f2fs_add_link > >>>> - f2fs_add_dentry > >>>> - f2fs_init_inode_metadata > >>>> - f2fs_add_inline_entry > >>>> - ipage = f2fs_new_inode_page > >>>> - f2fs_put_page(ipage) <---- after this > >>> > >>> Can you print out how many block was assigned to this inode? Can we update inode before finally putting ipage? > >> > >> Add log like this: > >> > >> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { > >> if (is_inode) { > >> for (i = 0; i < 923 - 50; i++) { > >> __le32 *base = blkaddr_in_node(node); > >> unsigned ofs = offset_in_addr(inode); > >> > >> printk("i:%u, addr:%x\n", i, > >> le32_to_cpu(*(base + i))); > >> } > >> printk("i_inline: %u\n", inode->i_inline); > >> } > >> > >> It shows: > >> ... > >> i:10, addr:e66a > >> ... > >> i:46, addr:e66c > >> i:47, addr:e66d > >> i:48, addr:e66e > >> i:49, addr:e66f > >> i:50, addr:e670 > >> i:51, addr:e671 > >> i:52, addr:e672 > >> i:53, addr:e673 > >> i:54, addr:e674 > >> i:55, addr:e675 > >> i:56, addr:e676 > >> ... > >> i:140, addr:2c35 <--- we want to migrate this block, however, without correct > >> .i_inline and .i_extra_isize value, we can just find i_addr[i:140-6] = NULL_ADDR > > > > So, the theory is the block is indeed valid and the address was updated before > > write_inode()? > > I guess so. :) > > Thanks, > > > > >> i:141, addr:2c38 > >> i:142, addr:2c39 > >> i:143, addr:2c3b > >> i:144, addr:2c3e > >> i:145, addr:2c40 > >> i:146, addr:2c44 > >> i:147, addr:2c48 > >> i:148, addr:2c4a > >> i:149, addr:2c4c > >> i:150, addr:2c4f > >> i:151, addr:2c59 > >> i:152, addr:2c5d > >> ... > >> i:188, addr:e677 > >> i:189, addr:e678 > >> i:190, addr:e679 > >> i:191, addr:e67a > >> i:192, addr:e67b > >> i:193, addr:e67c > >> i:194, addr:e67d > >> i:195, addr:e67e > >> i:196, addr:e67f > >> i:197, addr:e680 > >> i:198, addr:ffffffff > >> i:199, addr:ffffffff > >> i:200, addr:ffffffff > >> i:201, addr:ffffffff > >> i:202, addr:ffffffff > >> i:203, addr:ffffffff > >> i:204, addr:ffffffff > >> i:205, addr:ffffffff > >> i:206, addr:ffffffff > >> i:207, addr:ffffffff > >> i:208, addr:ffffffff > >> i:209, addr:ffffffff > >> i:210, addr:ffffffff > >> i:211, addr:ffffffff > >> i:212, addr:ffffffff > >> i:213, addr:ffffffff > >> i:214, addr:ffffffff > >> i:215, addr:ffffffff > >> i:216, addr:ffffffff > >> i:217, addr:ffffffff > >> i:218, addr:ffffffff > >> i:219, addr:ffffffff > >> i:220, addr:ffffffff > >> i:221, addr:ffffffff > >> i:222, addr:ffffffff > >> i:223, addr:ffffffff > >> i:224, addr:ffffffff > >> i:225, addr:ffffffff > >> i:226, addr:ffffffff > >> i:227, addr:ffffffff > >> i:228, addr:ffffffff > >> i:229, addr:ffffffff > >> i:230, addr:ffffffff > >> i:231, addr:ffffffff > >> i:232, addr:ffffffff > >> i:233, addr:ffffffff > >> i:234, addr:b032 > >> i:235, addr:b033 > >> i:236, addr:b034 > >> i:237, addr:b035 > >> i:238, addr:b036 > >> i:239, addr:b038 > >> ... > >> i:283, addr:e681 > >> ... > >> i_inline: 0 > >> > >> F2FS-fs (zram1): summary nid: 360, ofs: 134, ver: 0 > >> F2FS-fs (zram1): blkaddr 2c35 (blkaddr in node 0) <-blkaddr in node is NULL_ADDR > >> F2FS-fs (zram1): expect: seg 14, ofs_in_seg: 53 > >> F2FS-fs (zram1): real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 > >> F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs: 53, 0 > >> F2FS-fs (zram1): node info ino:360, nid:360, nofs:0 > >> F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs_in_addr: 0 > >> F2FS-fs (zram1): end ======== > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> is_alive() > >>>>>>> { > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> if (sum->version != dni->version) { > >>>>>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", > >>>>>> __func__); > >>>>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > >>>>>> } > >>>> > >>>> The version of summary and dni are all zero. > >>> > >>> Then, this node was allocated and removed without being flushed. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> summary nid: 613, ofs: 111, ver: 0 > >>>> blkaddr 2436 (blkaddr in node 0) > >>>> expect: seg 10, ofs_in_seg: 54 > >>>> real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 > >>>> ofs: 54, 0 > >>>> node info ino:613, nid:613, nofs:0 > >>>> ofs_in_addr: 0 > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { > >>>>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", > >>>>>> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); > >>>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with mismatched > >>>>> node version.". > >>> > >>> Was this block moved as valid? In either way, is_alive() returns false, no? > >>> How about checking i_blocks to detect the page is initialized in is_alive()? > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> } > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> datablock_addr() > >>>>>>> { > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to > >>>>>>> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> } > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - gc_data_segment > >>>>>>>>> - is_alive > >>>>>>>>> - datablock_addr > >>>>>>>>> - offset_in_addr > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") > >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> > >>>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ > >>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>>>>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 > >>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>>>>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, > >>>>>>>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) > >>>>>>>>> return page; > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ > >>>>>>>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); > >>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { > >>>>>>>>> /* in order to handle error case */ > >>>>>>>>> get_page(page); > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> 2.18.0.rc1 > >>>>>> . > >>>>>> > >>> . > >>> > > . > > _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() 2019-09-09 14:37 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-10 0:59 ` Chao Yu -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-10 0:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: Chao Yu, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel On 2019/9/9 22:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2019/9/9 17:33, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: >>>> On 2019/9/9 16:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>> On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>> On 2019/9/9 15:58, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>> On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>>> On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, >>>>>>>>>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call >>>>>>>>>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid >>>>>>>>>>> target block. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block >>>>>>>> really valid to move in GC? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess it's valid, let double check that. >>>>>> >>>>>> We can see inode page: >>>>>> >>>>>> - f2fs_create >>>>>> - f2fs_add_link >>>>>> - f2fs_add_dentry >>>>>> - f2fs_init_inode_metadata >>>>>> - f2fs_add_inline_entry >>>>>> - ipage = f2fs_new_inode_page >>>>>> - f2fs_put_page(ipage) <---- after this >>>>> >>>>> Can you print out how many block was assigned to this inode? > > Can we update inode before finally putting ipage? Agreed. Thanks, > >>>> >>>> Add log like this: >>>> >>>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { >>>> if (is_inode) { >>>> for (i = 0; i < 923 - 50; i++) { >>>> __le32 *base = blkaddr_in_node(node); >>>> unsigned ofs = offset_in_addr(inode); >>>> >>>> printk("i:%u, addr:%x\n", i, >>>> le32_to_cpu(*(base + i))); >>>> } >>>> printk("i_inline: %u\n", inode->i_inline); >>>> } >>>> >>>> It shows: >>>> ... >>>> i:10, addr:e66a >>>> ... >>>> i:46, addr:e66c >>>> i:47, addr:e66d >>>> i:48, addr:e66e >>>> i:49, addr:e66f >>>> i:50, addr:e670 >>>> i:51, addr:e671 >>>> i:52, addr:e672 >>>> i:53, addr:e673 >>>> i:54, addr:e674 >>>> i:55, addr:e675 >>>> i:56, addr:e676 >>>> ... >>>> i:140, addr:2c35 <--- we want to migrate this block, however, without correct >>>> .i_inline and .i_extra_isize value, we can just find i_addr[i:140-6] = NULL_ADDR >>> >>> So, the theory is the block is indeed valid and the address was updated before >>> write_inode()? >> >> I guess so. :) >> >> Thanks, >> >>> >>>> i:141, addr:2c38 >>>> i:142, addr:2c39 >>>> i:143, addr:2c3b >>>> i:144, addr:2c3e >>>> i:145, addr:2c40 >>>> i:146, addr:2c44 >>>> i:147, addr:2c48 >>>> i:148, addr:2c4a >>>> i:149, addr:2c4c >>>> i:150, addr:2c4f >>>> i:151, addr:2c59 >>>> i:152, addr:2c5d >>>> ... >>>> i:188, addr:e677 >>>> i:189, addr:e678 >>>> i:190, addr:e679 >>>> i:191, addr:e67a >>>> i:192, addr:e67b >>>> i:193, addr:e67c >>>> i:194, addr:e67d >>>> i:195, addr:e67e >>>> i:196, addr:e67f >>>> i:197, addr:e680 >>>> i:198, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:199, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:200, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:201, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:202, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:203, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:204, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:205, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:206, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:207, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:208, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:209, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:210, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:211, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:212, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:213, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:214, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:215, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:216, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:217, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:218, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:219, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:220, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:221, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:222, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:223, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:224, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:225, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:226, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:227, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:228, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:229, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:230, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:231, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:232, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:233, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:234, addr:b032 >>>> i:235, addr:b033 >>>> i:236, addr:b034 >>>> i:237, addr:b035 >>>> i:238, addr:b036 >>>> i:239, addr:b038 >>>> ... >>>> i:283, addr:e681 >>>> ... >>>> i_inline: 0 >>>> >>>> F2FS-fs (zram1): summary nid: 360, ofs: 134, ver: 0 >>>> F2FS-fs (zram1): blkaddr 2c35 (blkaddr in node 0) <-blkaddr in node is NULL_ADDR >>>> F2FS-fs (zram1): expect: seg 14, ofs_in_seg: 53 >>>> F2FS-fs (zram1): real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 >>>> F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs: 53, 0 >>>> F2FS-fs (zram1): node info ino:360, nid:360, nofs:0 >>>> F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs_in_addr: 0 >>>> F2FS-fs (zram1): end ======== >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> is_alive() >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if (sum->version != dni->version) { >>>>>>>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", >>>>>>>> __func__); >>>>>>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); >>>>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> The version of summary and dni are all zero. >>>>> >>>>> Then, this node was allocated and removed without being flushed. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> summary nid: 613, ofs: 111, ver: 0 >>>>>> blkaddr 2436 (blkaddr in node 0) >>>>>> expect: seg 10, ofs_in_seg: 54 >>>>>> real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 >>>>>> ofs: 54, 0 >>>>>> node info ino:613, nid:613, nofs:0 >>>>>> ofs_in_addr: 0 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { >>>>>>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", >>>>>>>> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with mismatched >>>>>>> node version.". >>>>> >>>>> Was this block moved as valid? In either way, is_alive() returns false, no? >>>>> How about checking i_blocks to detect the page is initialized in is_alive()? >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> datablock_addr() >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to >>>>>>>>> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - gc_data_segment >>>>>>>>>>> - is_alive >>>>>>>>>>> - datablock_addr >>>>>>>>>>> - offset_in_addr >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ >>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>>>>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, >>>>>>>>>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) >>>>>>>>>>> return page; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ >>>>>>>>>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); >>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { >>>>>>>>>>> /* in order to handle error case */ >>>>>>>>>>> get_page(page); >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> 2.18.0.rc1 >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>> . >>>>> >>> . >>> > . > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() @ 2019-09-10 0:59 ` Chao Yu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-10 0:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel On 2019/9/9 22:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2019/9/9 17:33, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: >>>> On 2019/9/9 16:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>> On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>> On 2019/9/9 15:58, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>> On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>>> On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, >>>>>>>>>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call >>>>>>>>>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid >>>>>>>>>>> target block. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block >>>>>>>> really valid to move in GC? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess it's valid, let double check that. >>>>>> >>>>>> We can see inode page: >>>>>> >>>>>> - f2fs_create >>>>>> - f2fs_add_link >>>>>> - f2fs_add_dentry >>>>>> - f2fs_init_inode_metadata >>>>>> - f2fs_add_inline_entry >>>>>> - ipage = f2fs_new_inode_page >>>>>> - f2fs_put_page(ipage) <---- after this >>>>> >>>>> Can you print out how many block was assigned to this inode? > > Can we update inode before finally putting ipage? Agreed. Thanks, > >>>> >>>> Add log like this: >>>> >>>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { >>>> if (is_inode) { >>>> for (i = 0; i < 923 - 50; i++) { >>>> __le32 *base = blkaddr_in_node(node); >>>> unsigned ofs = offset_in_addr(inode); >>>> >>>> printk("i:%u, addr:%x\n", i, >>>> le32_to_cpu(*(base + i))); >>>> } >>>> printk("i_inline: %u\n", inode->i_inline); >>>> } >>>> >>>> It shows: >>>> ... >>>> i:10, addr:e66a >>>> ... >>>> i:46, addr:e66c >>>> i:47, addr:e66d >>>> i:48, addr:e66e >>>> i:49, addr:e66f >>>> i:50, addr:e670 >>>> i:51, addr:e671 >>>> i:52, addr:e672 >>>> i:53, addr:e673 >>>> i:54, addr:e674 >>>> i:55, addr:e675 >>>> i:56, addr:e676 >>>> ... >>>> i:140, addr:2c35 <--- we want to migrate this block, however, without correct >>>> .i_inline and .i_extra_isize value, we can just find i_addr[i:140-6] = NULL_ADDR >>> >>> So, the theory is the block is indeed valid and the address was updated before >>> write_inode()? >> >> I guess so. :) >> >> Thanks, >> >>> >>>> i:141, addr:2c38 >>>> i:142, addr:2c39 >>>> i:143, addr:2c3b >>>> i:144, addr:2c3e >>>> i:145, addr:2c40 >>>> i:146, addr:2c44 >>>> i:147, addr:2c48 >>>> i:148, addr:2c4a >>>> i:149, addr:2c4c >>>> i:150, addr:2c4f >>>> i:151, addr:2c59 >>>> i:152, addr:2c5d >>>> ... >>>> i:188, addr:e677 >>>> i:189, addr:e678 >>>> i:190, addr:e679 >>>> i:191, addr:e67a >>>> i:192, addr:e67b >>>> i:193, addr:e67c >>>> i:194, addr:e67d >>>> i:195, addr:e67e >>>> i:196, addr:e67f >>>> i:197, addr:e680 >>>> i:198, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:199, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:200, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:201, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:202, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:203, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:204, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:205, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:206, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:207, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:208, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:209, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:210, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:211, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:212, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:213, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:214, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:215, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:216, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:217, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:218, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:219, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:220, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:221, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:222, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:223, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:224, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:225, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:226, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:227, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:228, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:229, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:230, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:231, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:232, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:233, addr:ffffffff >>>> i:234, addr:b032 >>>> i:235, addr:b033 >>>> i:236, addr:b034 >>>> i:237, addr:b035 >>>> i:238, addr:b036 >>>> i:239, addr:b038 >>>> ... >>>> i:283, addr:e681 >>>> ... >>>> i_inline: 0 >>>> >>>> F2FS-fs (zram1): summary nid: 360, ofs: 134, ver: 0 >>>> F2FS-fs (zram1): blkaddr 2c35 (blkaddr in node 0) <-blkaddr in node is NULL_ADDR >>>> F2FS-fs (zram1): expect: seg 14, ofs_in_seg: 53 >>>> F2FS-fs (zram1): real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 >>>> F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs: 53, 0 >>>> F2FS-fs (zram1): node info ino:360, nid:360, nofs:0 >>>> F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs_in_addr: 0 >>>> F2FS-fs (zram1): end ======== >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> is_alive() >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if (sum->version != dni->version) { >>>>>>>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", >>>>>>>> __func__); >>>>>>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); >>>>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> The version of summary and dni are all zero. >>>>> >>>>> Then, this node was allocated and removed without being flushed. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> summary nid: 613, ofs: 111, ver: 0 >>>>>> blkaddr 2436 (blkaddr in node 0) >>>>>> expect: seg 10, ofs_in_seg: 54 >>>>>> real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 >>>>>> ofs: 54, 0 >>>>>> node info ino:613, nid:613, nofs:0 >>>>>> ofs_in_addr: 0 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { >>>>>>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", >>>>>>>> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with mismatched >>>>>>> node version.". >>>>> >>>>> Was this block moved as valid? In either way, is_alive() returns false, no? >>>>> How about checking i_blocks to detect the page is initialized in is_alive()? >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> datablock_addr() >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to >>>>>>>>> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - gc_data_segment >>>>>>>>>>> - is_alive >>>>>>>>>>> - datablock_addr >>>>>>>>>>> - offset_in_addr >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ >>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>>>>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, >>>>>>>>>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) >>>>>>>>>>> return page; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ >>>>>>>>>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); >>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { >>>>>>>>>>> /* in order to handle error case */ >>>>>>>>>>> get_page(page); >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> 2.18.0.rc1 >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>> . >>>>> >>> . >>> > . > _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-09-10 1:01 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2019-09-06 10:54 [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() Chao Yu 2019-09-06 10:54 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu 2019-09-06 23:48 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2019-09-06 23:48 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim 2019-09-07 1:23 ` Chao Yu 2019-09-07 1:23 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu 2019-09-09 7:44 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2019-09-09 7:44 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim 2019-09-09 7:58 ` Chao Yu 2019-09-09 7:58 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu 2019-09-09 8:16 ` Chao Yu 2019-09-09 8:16 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu 2019-09-09 8:37 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2019-09-09 8:37 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim 2019-09-09 9:18 ` Chao Yu 2019-09-09 9:18 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu 2019-09-09 9:33 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2019-09-09 9:33 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim 2019-09-09 11:05 ` Chao Yu 2019-09-09 11:05 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu 2019-09-09 14:37 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2019-09-09 14:37 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim 2019-09-10 0:59 ` Chao Yu 2019-09-10 0:59 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.